By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dsgrue3 on 20 May 2013
Edit Thread
Ckmlb1 said:
dsgrue3 said:

I'm saying there a substantive difference between intelligence and talking points. Don't conflate the two. 

We have direct testiomy from Gregory Hicks confirming that the attack was indeed born of terrorism on that same day. It's highly ludicrous to suggest the CIA was unaware of this.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

And disagreement from Patraeus himself.

But sure, go ahead and believe this was the CIA's fault, even though there is insurmountable evidence against that assertion.

I really don't care what you believe. I'm interested in the truth.


Once again, direct quote from CIA:  “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.”

And deputy director of the CIA Morrell was the one that removed the references to previous warnings and the presence of extremists in what was then still considered a violent protest.  Can't pick and choose between your preferred members of the CIA. You should also notice that Petraeus concedes his point?

 I seem to not remember any heads at CIA or elsewhere rolling over 9/11 or the WMD fiasco, but now the president has to be impeached cause of faulty CIA intelligence? Bigger scandal than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined x10 apparently.

Gregory Hicks also said that fighter jets should do flyovers to scare away attackers, something that was impossible and pointless according to Republican defense secretary Gates.

I'm happy to blame the CIA if they are responsible, but if Hicks knew it was a terrorist attack - the CIA knew.

It simply isn't feasible to suggest the WH didn't have the same intel the CIA and Hicks had. 

You keep posting quotations from days after the attack of talking points. I've already explained the difference between talking points and intelligence. You seem hell-bent on conflating them, probably because it suits your agenda.

Like I said, I don't care who is to blame - Republicans, Democrats, Independents, CIA, NSA, WH, State Department, or all of them. I'm just interested in getting an answer as to why the talking points were so different from the actual intelligence and holding someone accountable.

It isn't like it's the first time in history in which the government in some capacity has lied to us, but it certainly does not mean we should tolerate it.