The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Obama knew it was terror, lied anyway||Date: 11/18/2012 10:04 AM|
|Author: 99lashes||Number: 1838012 of 1913908|
“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”
Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away.
Seeing how you love the NYT rag, try this one on for size.
Ambitious to be secretary of state, Susan Rice wanted to prove she had the gravitas for the job and help out the White House. So the ambassador to the United Nations agreed to a National Security Council request to go on all five Sunday shows to talk about the attack on the American consulate in Libya.
“She saw this as a great opportunity to go out and close the stature gap,” said one administration official. “She was focused on the performance, not the content. People said, ‘It’s sad because it was one of her best performances.’ But it’s not a movie, it’s the news. Everyone in politics thinks, you just get your good talking points and learn them and reiterate them on camera. But what if they’re not good talking points? What if what you’re saying isn’t true, even if you’re saying it well?”
Testifying on Capitol Hill on Friday, the beheaded Head Spook David Petraeus said the C.I.A. knew quickly that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack.
“It was such a no-brainer,” one intelligence official told me.
AQ takes credit for everything,why not just say a "terrorist event, likely with AQ attachments" and not some unexpected,spontaneous protest caused by an American? You don't have to name names at that point. Just be honest with what you can say and not make stuff up. They set Rice up, and now want to protect the lamb they sent out to slaughter...reward her even.
Again, there is no reason not to say terrorist attack as it does not convey "all the state and military secrets" to bare.
What a joke.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|