| theprof00 said: 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. 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.
