What price?

Go on tv, when they ask questions about xyz, rely on this briefing prepared by the intelligence agencies?

Yes, that one. She had the actual reports. She knew beforehand it was incorrect.
I'm not advocating her revealing classified info, but she blatantly knew what she was saying was not true. "We don't know, investigation underway" would have been better than the bullshit about blaming a video clip no one saw.

so you are saying she just sat there and lied? that she saw the reports said x and instead said y? That's not what I suggested. I'm saying she repeated what was in her briefing. You're saying she just made up some shit that was NOT in her briefing? I find that hard to believe.

What do you mean "blaming a video clip that no one saw"?

While the video didn't incite the attack in Libya, it did start protests in Egypt, Yemen, and about 10 other Islamic countries. It is not surprising that the video was initially blamed since it was known to be circulating in Islamic countries a few days before the attack.

Either I am not being clear or you are intentionally twisting what I posted.
I find the latter extremely difficult to believe. Please try rereading my post.

Did it? We have been told that it had. How did all those people suddenly see this video all at virtually the same time? Why did they all riot on THAT same night? How was this "video" spread? Yep, I got my conspiracy hat on.

Note that all interest in those issues & incidents has been dropped. Nothing to see here, move along. :right:
Look, I've got no more info than you or anyone else, but to blame a video that was out for MONTHS prior to all these incidents seems at least a little questionable.

There isn't much information about it but here is a theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactio...nce_of_Muslims

I do remember hearing about the video before the attacks. I'm guessing it was discovered by these groups a few weeks before 9/11 and thought it would be convenient to spread the video throughout Egypt the week before an already planned protest.

I don't know whether Libya is related at all or it is just coincidence.

Not at all, some things sit on youtube for a long time before going viral. When this video became known in the Islamic world, Aljazeera and other TV, as well as youtube, is available in those countries.

BTW,

Thank you for the whole of your update - it was very illuminating.

But most interesting me was your posting in Peshawar.
Wonderful cuisine in that area.
Peshwari naan is on the menu of most curry houses round here. Now that's not to my taste (too sweet) but I've had some fantastic lamb curries.

Not that I think with my belly or anything.

Your explanation for a team house, is completely different than it is for an embassy or consulate. We have treaties in place for the latter, but not for the former.

In fact, a military response team was sent to Benghazi, but they arrived some 15 hours after the attack began. Since Al Qaeda returned to the attack, one or two of the KIA, was from the response team.

The response was piss poor, everyone knows that. That is very bad, but by far the worst thing was to have the President's spokesperson (Rice), come out and spin her lies to us on no less than FIVE tv talk shows, that weekend.

Lies that she got, according to Obama, straight from him and his staff.

It wasn't the intelligence briefing that had the lie about it being a demonstration over a film - they never thought that was true in Libya. This was an attack from al Qaeda, not a film demonstration. It was confirmed with a recon drone, for god's sake.

If our Commander in Chief thinks he's going to lie to us, with impunity, over a military attack on our state department personnel, involving fatalities, our Commander in Chief, had better think again.

Of course, he lied to the families of those KIA, when Obama met them, as well (at Andrews Air Force Base).

I'm sure he's such a practiced liar that a few shed tears from a grieving widow, did not interrupt his lie, even a little bit.

Looks like Obama has been taking lying lessons from Clinton. At least Clinton's lies were banal, and you had to laugh. I loved his:
"It depends on what your definition of "is", is". -- such a classic! :D

Drones can't read minds yet.

The intelligence briefing removed mention of al Qaeda due to lack of corroboration at the time. When they were confident enough, the briefings reflected that change.

The briefings never indicated the incident in Benghazi was anything but an attack - it never was described as a demonstration over a film, a riot, etc.

And it was the anniversary of 9/11 --- .

Exactly what militia was attacking, wasn't known immediately, but THAT it WAS an attack, was very clear.

Why do you insist on calling it "Rain!", whenever Obama pees down your legs?

I don't get it - if ANY recent president except Obama did this crap, they'd be keel-hauled by the press and media.

But for Obama - it's golf and fun times, hey! :cool:

Fog of war applies.

Why would Obama lie about such a thing? What's the motivation, especially when more details were due to come out? It's been floated that the administration didn't want to admit that the "war on terror" is still a *thing*. But it's a much more likely explanation that someone speculated wrong early, and the explanation lingered awhile before the real details circulated to the top.

look at you and your occam's razor.

Right! Fog of War!

Because we never heard of Al Qaeda in Libya, and we never knew that they might attack us on the anniversary of 9/11.

And we didn't have a recon drone there, watching the whole thing with a high resolution real time camera feed.

Oh, and we didn't receive those alarms and those phone calls, and those emails from the Consulate, saying that they were under ATTACK.

Right -- Fog of War! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You'd have to be in a coma to believe that, my friend.

Because Obama got a boost from killing Bin Laden - and this Benghazi incident took place just shortly before the election. If he has to admit that it was Al Qaeda that killed our Ambassador, that means he's not the Commander in Chief many thought he was.

If it comes out before the election, that he let our Ambassador and a few other service personnel die, because he wouldn't send in the troops, he loses still more votes. Now he would be broadly seen as a creepy un-American Commander in Chief, who won't support our Embassy personnel, when they are under attack.

For those readers of a younger generation, this is a classic strategy. BTW, that Al Qaeda is using. We used the same one against the Japanese in WWII.

Think of our Embassies like islands in the Pacific. And this time, we're the ones on those islands. It's easy to focus military force against ONE island at a time, and overrun it. The Japanese don't know which island will be hit next - although some are obvious (like Iwo Jima and Okinawa). Same with our Embassies. We don't know which one will be attacked next, and it's easy for Al Qaeda to focus their force against just one Embassy, and overrun it.

It's made that much easier if the "security relief force" only has a dozen or so guys on it, and they take 15 hours to get there - although they're just one hour away, by air.

:lame:

Totally :lame: