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.
XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb