Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]So [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrgeuLb3dQ"]THIS[/URL] isn't a 'cover up' to you, but the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi matter is... [I]after[/I] the intelligence community made it clear they are the ones who altered the talking points? :confusedshrug:

McCain has given up his misguided crusade and admitted he was mistaken. It's time for you to follow his lead.[/QUOTE]

It is a coverup if they mentioned a video as the source when there was absolutely no reason to believe so.

In regards to the 9/11 attacks, maybe she did lie. But the video presents mostly irrelevant information on page numbers, which doesn't really have any bearing what so ever on the debate on whether she lied or not. Even if she did, little could have been done to prevent that specific kind of attack, other than straightening airport security, which I don't believe was at all discussed as a possible attack method. Could be poor memory, because the reports did in fact talk about the history of Al-Qaida.

[QUOTE=Math2]It is a coverup if they mentioned a video as the source when there was absolutely no reason to believe so. [/QUOTE]

And what makes you so sure there was no reason to initially believe that?

From faux news, because we know their word is gold:

[INDENT][B][U]Witnesses: Libya consulate attack seemed planned, may have used anti-Islam film as cover[/U][/B]

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. [B][COLOR="Red"]But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film.[/COLOR][/B] Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

[B]The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press[/B] give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. [B]But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.[/B]

Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/27/witnesses-libya-consulate-attack-seemed-planned-may-have-used-anti-islam-film/#ixzz2Cuams3Gi[/url][/INDENT]

Ambassador's Rice comments:

[INDENT]"When discussing he attack against our facilities in Benghazi, [B][COLOR="Red"][B]I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community[/B][/COLOR][/B]," Rice said Wednesday evening to reporters outside the U.N. Security Council.

"[B][COLOR="Red"]I made clear that the information was preliminary, and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers[/COLOR][/B]," she added. "As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities, American diplomatic facilities around the world, and Iran's nuclear program."


Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/us-ambassador-rice-defends-comments-on-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2CudLGbjh[/url][/INDENT]

As was revealed, the intelligence community edited their reports and the investigation was still ongoing when certain preliminary statements were made. Hearings were held, officials gave their accounts, others went to the press. The matter is resolved. McCain has conceded yet another defeat against Barry.


[QUOTE]In regards to the 9/11 attacks, [B]maybe she did lie[/B]. But the video presents mostly irrelevant information on page numbers, which doesn't really have any bearing what so ever on the debate on whether she lied or not. Even if she did, little could have been done to prevent that specific kind of attack, other than straightening airport security, which I don't believe was at all discussed as a possible attack method. Could be poor memory, because the reports did in fact talk about the history of Al-Qaida.[/QUOTE]

There is no maybe about it.

Secretary Rice: [B]"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States, it was historical information, based on old reporting, there was no new threat information, and it did not in fact warn of any coming attacks inside the United States".[/B]

From the PDA "Bin Laden determined to Attack in the U.S." (August 6, 2011):

[B][INDENT]Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.[/INDENT][/B]

More:

[INDENT][B][U]The Deafness Before the Storm[/U][/B]
By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012


IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

[B]The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.[/B]

[B][COLOR="Red"]But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster.[/COLOR][/B] An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

[B][COLOR="Red"]In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.[/COLOR][/B]

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” [B][COLOR="Red"]Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.[/COLOR][/B]

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. [B]Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.[/B]

[B][COLOR="Red"]On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.[/COLOR][/B]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0[/url][/INDENT]


Bold. Faced. Lie... Under oath.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]And what makes you so sure there was no reason to initially believe that?

From faux news, because we know their word is gold:

[INDENT][B][U]Witnesses: Libya consulate attack seemed planned, may have used anti-Islam film as cover[/U][/B]

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. [B][COLOR="Red"]But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film.[/COLOR][/B] Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

[B]The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press[/B] give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. [B]But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.[/B]

Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/27/witnesses-libya-consulate-attack-seemed-planned-may-have-used-anti-islam-film/#ixzz2Cuams3Gi[/url][/INDENT]

Ambassador's Rice comments:

[INDENT]"When discussing he attack against our facilities in Benghazi, [B][COLOR="Red"][B]I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community[/B][/COLOR][/B]," Rice said Wednesday evening to reporters outside the U.N. Security Council.

"[B][COLOR="Red"]I made clear that the information was preliminary, and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers[/COLOR][/B]," she added. "As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities, American diplomatic facilities around the world, and Iran's nuclear program."


Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/us-ambassador-rice-defends-comments-on-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2CudLGbjh[/url][/INDENT]

As was revealed, the intelligence community edited their reports and the investigation was still ongoing when certain preliminary statements were made. Hearings were held, officials gave their accounts, others went to the press. The matter is resolved. McCain has conceded yet another defeat against Barry.




There is no maybe about it.

Secretary Rice: [B]"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States, it was historical information, based on old reporting, there was no new threat information, and it did not in fact warn of any coming attacks inside the United States".[/B]

From the PDA "Bin Laden determined to Attack in the U.S." (August 6, 2011):

[B][INDENT]Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.[/INDENT][/B]

More:

[INDENT][B][U]The Deafness Before the Storm[/U][/B]
By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012


IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning

[QUOTE=Math2]But the film was in no way what the organizer's claimed it to be. It was an Al-Qaida attack on the consulate aimed at freeing captured leaders. How do you explain Al-Qaida flags at the attack if it was a protest over a film?

Not bold faced lie, maybe. Is it no more a lie for Obama to change his story on Benghazi, then lie about it afterwards (with the help of Candy whatever her name is)?[/QUOTE]

You must have a very severe learning disability. Obama didn't change shit in regards to the talking points, and neither did anyone in his administration. John McCain acknowledged his error and finally gave up his wild goose chase, and he was the top dog in this waste of time politicization of a National tragedy. Again, you should take notes from him. It's over.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]You must have a very severe learning disability. Obama didn't change shit in regards to the talking points, and neither did anyone in his administration. John McCain acknowledged his error and finally gave up his wild goose chase, and he was the top dog in this waste of time politicization of a National tragedy. Again, you should take notes from him. It's over.[/QUOTE]

I'd say it's you who fails to see what I'm saying. Let me say this for about the 10th time (I'll even make it bigger for you to see)

[SIZE="5"][B][I][U]I DO NOT THINK THAT OBAMA CHANGED THE TALKING POINTS. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I HAVE, DESPITE YOU CONTINUOUSLY PUTTING THOSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I DO HOWEVER THINK THAT HE DELIBERATELY LIED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, AND THAT HE LIED LATER THAT HE THOUGHT RIGHT FROM THE GET GO THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK. HE DELIBERATELY MISLED THE US PEOPLE.[/U][/I][/B][/SIZE]

Clear enough?

Let it go already, it's over. :oldlol:

There was no conspiracy, the investigation was launched, the pertinent parties testified or went to the media to clear up the issue. The guy who launched the witch hunt admitted his mistake and he moved on. It's done.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Let it go already, it's over. :oldlol:

There was no conspiracy, the investigation was launched, the pertinent parties testified or went to the media to clear up the issue. The guy who launched the witch hunt admitted his mistake and he moved on. It's done.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say so.