| Ckmlb1 said: 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?
|
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.
