You keep mentioning 3 DAYS LATER as if that changes what the content of the CIA emails. 

So 3 days later the CIA was lying about the protest for talking points? If the information they believed 3 days later included the idea that there was a violent protest, what makes you think the original intelligence didn't suggest the same thing? Once again, pointing out to you that the protest is being mentioned by the CIA. Do you have any proof that the administration made up the idea of the protest? (which, again, is mentioned by the CIA) 

Biggest terrorist attack in history, warnings of Al Qaeda attacks and a history of them, but that is irrelevant for the CIA to figure out? WMD information that led to a war where 5000 americans died and how many Iraqis? That is irrelevant? Tell me out of these 3 CIA mistakes of intelligence which one cost more? Which is a bigger intelligence failure? 

A bit different between getting information post hoc as opposed to speculating on WMDs and rather ambiguous information about 9/11. You act like the intel was that there would be planes smashing into the twin towers on 9/11/2001 - that wasn't even remotely close to the case. Not relevant to this matter though. Stay on topic.

Again, you're still posting articles about the emails FROM 3 DAYS LATER. 

The relevant emails from contemporary intel are not released and probably never will be. These emails aren't about discussing the attack, they are about talking points. Go read them - nothing but unclassified bullet points, i.e. sheltering the public from what actually happened.

Educate yourself.

ACtually there was

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007041861537264

"You have to remember," Mr. Lorenzi elaborates, "that in 2001, hijacking an airplane didn't mean the same thing as it did after September 11. At the time, it implied forcing a plane to land at an airport to conduct negotiations. We were used to dealing with that."

Besides that, is it really reasonable to compare protecting one singular consulate that was known to have security concerns with keeping every single flight from being hijacked?

So both times the CIA didn't anticipate how large scale the attacks would be.

I don't even know why we are still arguing. None of what was accused was proven by the email releases.
It's only an issue because Hilary is a contender for next election race. That's really the only reason it's being brought up again.

That and to continue stalling on passing laws. This is just another version of a philibuster.

So both times the CIA didn't anticipate how large scale the attacks would be.

I don't even know why we are still arguing. None of what was accused was proven by the email releases.
It's only an issue because Hilary is a contender for next election race. That's really the only reason it's being brought up again.

That and to continue stalling on passing laws. This is just another version of a philibuster.

Again, they are simply not comparable situations. You have a vague warning that terrorists might be looking to hijack airliners (which was a decades old story by then, and no one ever considered the idea that they would be turned into missiles) vs. a specific consulate which had asked for increased security and never received it. In the latter case the CIA apparently warned the State Department in some fashion, though going by the e-mails the exact nature of the warning(s) seems to be in dispute.

One accusation that has been proven by the e-mails is that the White House lied about what changes were made to the talking points and by whom.

So we are upset that the white house chose not to tell us that the CIA specifically told them not to say anything about it...

I don't think I'd characterize it that way when the head of the CIA wanted there to be even more information about the warnings in the talking points and the e-mails show the State Department strenuously objecting.