Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lib-tards like being lied to Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Do I really have to post the testimony by
> Paneta,
> > Clapper, Hamm and others saying so?
>
> Their opinions are not 'classified intelligence'.
> As I said, there was not any 'classified
> intelligence' available at the time that even
> suggested that 'an attack by al Qaeda and
> affiliated militia' had occurred.
They are not opinions. Their judgement was based on communications intercepts, who they knew was involved, and the nature of the attack. Obama was informed within hours reflecting the same.
Quote
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief...
The transcript reads as follows:
WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”
HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”
WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”
HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.
“There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.
Much more indicating why they believed it to be an attack and not a demonstration, reiterated by them and and confirmed by others, and none of which involves any video as the trigger.
>
> > Feinstein and Dems on the intelligence
> committee
> > who had access to the information weren't even
> > able to choke it down.
>
> Bullshit.
>
Absolutely not bullshit.
Quote
The conclusions of a months-long New York Times investigation that found no evidence al Qaeda played a role in the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya don't "jibe" with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
“I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, Feinstein told The Hill in a story published Tuesday. “That’s my understanding."
The California Democrat also told the Hill that the Times' finding the attacks were largely motivated by outrage at an American-made anti-Islam video didn't "jibe" with her.
> > It was a politically based excuse which ignored
> > "the best intelligence available" in order to
> > present a fantasy that better fit the desired
> > narrative they wanted to push. Which is why
> they
> > sent Rice out with the story on all of the
> Sunday
> > shows when they didn't have to.
>
> That's your opinion, but it doesn't fit the
> facts.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
Not my opinion. They knew it was an attack. They chose to present another story to the public. Those are the facts based on the evidence available. You might dispute the rationale for why they did, but there's no disputing that they did.