Wenstrup is setting up a straw man. No one denied this was an attack and not a demonstration. Susan Rice said the attack was carried out by armed extremists. What more do you want from these people?
I suspect that part of why this poster and others sound so silly is that not a single person I know was influenced by this supposed narrative, if there even was one.
But then again there are stupid people out there who might eat that sort of message up. Dunno. It’s not like we’ve ever been at significant risk from terrorists, but that doesn’t stop people from freaking out.
Are the following statements true?
Susan Rice said: “But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.” But prior to the time she said this the White House possessed information that showed the attack was premeditated and there was no reason to believe it was a response to a video or a protest in Cairo.
Hillary stood by the coffins of the four victims and told the Woods family “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” But prior to saying this she knew the true nature of the attack, and that the video was not part of the reason for it.
A cover up would mean that some information was hidden. None was. There was a terrible mistake made here, Americans had no business being in Libya without much more heavily armed security. Instead of any serious investigation into this failure we are wasting time on Republican self-delusion about a cover up of public information.
I got some news for you Republicans:
Racer X is really Speed’s brother Rex!
Start your investigation of that one.
You mean when Congress subpoenaed the White House, all relevant emails were disclosed and none were held back?
What information was covered up?
Do you have a cite supporting this claim? The CIA talking points indicated that a spontaneous reaction to the events in Cairo evolved into an attack by heavily armed extremists.
Frankly until someone can demonstrate that the CIA was subjected to political pressure in crafting the talking points, I don’t understand what we’re even debating.
By the way, Susan Rice did not categorically deny that it could have been preplanned.
The fact that it was White House talking points that talked about the attacks being “spontaneously inspired” - while, as I documented above, the Administration knew that they were not.
You do realize that withholding subpoenaed materials from Congress is a criminal offense, right?
It doesn’t matter, withholding documents does not form a cover up. No documents contained information that was covered up. Talking points aren’t information. There was nothing covered up. Why don’t you think the terrible planning and lack of attention to the obvious threat are not a scandal but an imaginary cover up is?
CIA has changed the talking points several times under political pressure. That has been documented.
Withholding documents from a subpoena is the very definition of “cover up”. You may not think it is a “scandal” that the White House has committed a criminal offense of withholding information from a Congressional subpoena? I do.
Again, “withheld” means that someone saw it, thought it was relevant, and deliberately kept it away from congress.
You failed to prove that the Administration knew this.
Sure, but considering the volume of material, and the fact that there was no new information in the ‘new’ email, there seems to be no reason to believe that this new email was deliberately held back.
They were revised (as all things are), but there is no evidence that this was due to political pressure.
I didn’t say anything about a scandal. I am challenging you to present information that was covered up and you don’t have any. If you want a scandal why don’t you look at the failure to protect our personnel in Libya. That is scandalous.
It’s crazy that the republicans keep “investigating” this, turning up nothing, and continue to look just so it appears like the administration is hiding something. It makes me furious, but the conservatives I work with eat it up.
Not that it happened, but even if someone in the administration sent e-mails claiming the attacks were not from a spontaneous protest while the white house maintained that as of right now, the intelligence points to this stemming from a protest, it doesn’t mean anything. I’m sure plenty of ideas of what was behind the attacks were thrown out there for discussion, just because in hindsight we can say one was right doesn’t mean there was a coverup.
And what would be the point of a coverup of this nature anyway? It’s bizarre.
What does your cite have to do with the White House, or the election, or knowledge that te attack was preplanned?
If the administration had come out and said this was a preplanned attack by Al-Qaeda and it later turned out to be spontaneous disorganized extremists, they’d be accused of fearmongering and drumming up support for the commander in chief ahead of the election.
Given that the intelligence at the time was incomplete and still evolving, they were screwed no matter what they had Susan Rice say.
Maybe they withheld it because they knew its contents would be grossly misrepresented by right wing media and Republican talking points.
The absolute pathetic *need *for this to be real is just amazing.