[QUOTE=Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi]
the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.
It appears that your letter was rushed out to the press to counter the public firestorm caused by Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s stark admission that Republicans are using millions of taxpayer dollars to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president. However, your letter only provided further evidence of this fact.
It wasn’t just the first few hours. Jay Carney repeated the misinformation a day or two later, Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows five days later and spread the same misinformation, and Obama himself went before the U.N. two weeks later and connected the video to the attack.
And, they knew it wasn’t true, the entire time. It was all spin.
I think you’re mistaking the timeline. The claim of responsibility made them think that it had nothing to do with the video. When the claim was retracted, they thought it was related to the video again. And this is the intelligence community, not Obama and Hill-dawg themselves.
Timeline:
Benghazi happens.
Initially it is thought it’s related to the video.
A group of Al-Quaeda affiliates claims responsibility.
It is then thought it has nothing to do with the video.
The Al-Quaeda affiliates retract their claim of responsibility.
It is then thought it still may have something to do with the video.
The investigation eventually shows it has nothing to do with the video.
Does that make sense?
Never mind that the idea that saying it’s about a video is hardly something that makes the administration look better. The whole RW media claim that the video was used as cover is the result of disordered, fuzzy thinking. At attack is an attack.
It wasn’t a “chaotic battle scene” two weeks later, and the Administration (which obviously included Sec. Clinton), was still making claims about the video.
I’m sure you’re far too intelligent to be referring to his UN speech, which did not blame Benghazi on the video. It mentioned that the video was responsible for protests around the Muslim world, and it definitely was — in Pakistan, Cairo, and Tunisia, to name three places that immediately come to mind.
So, since you’re clearly too bright to cite the UN speech, what is your cite?
Of course it was. Look at the pictures. The place was ransacked.
The intelligence community thought it still had something to do with the video until the investigation showed it was not.
Are you really having such trouble understanding this?
You made a claim of nefarious doings by Clinton. I showed you the explanation. Now you don’t accept it, and you keep asking the same questions, which have already been answered.
And I would say that anybody who is truly independent could not help but see how well she compares to the clowns running for the Republican nomination.
Because GW Bush didn’t? Gee, aside from the Iraq War, the naming of (more than the substance of) the Patriot Act, why did the GOP have their convention in a state they could’ve know they’d never come close to winning in 2004?
The video is obviously Innocence of Muslims, and the embassy is very likely the one in Cairo, where protestors incited by the video attacked our embassy, scaled the walls, and tore down our flag.
I know you’re well-informed enough to know that he COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been referring to Benghazi, because we had no embassy there.