ExPatriatePen wrote:You're not insinuating that popcorn and cider in a theater seat is the only way Rice could have gotten that information are you?
No, but you
ExPatriatePen wrote:If you'd rather believe that the administration was more than willing to admit they were wrong about the "AlQaeda on the run" comments and just didn't know that there had been prior attacks, numerous requests for adiitional security from the embassy, and drones in the air watching the entire event go ahead. I just think if they're that incompetant, they don't deserve my unquestioning support.
That was in response to my question "What evidence is there that she KNEW something different than what she said?" And instead of answering that specific question, it immediately became 'the administration', and 'they' (plural).
There has - still - not been one piece of evidence offered that Ambassador Rice was actually told any of the information she is being skewered for not sharing. And that's wrong.
ExPatriatePen wrote:Why does the image of an ostrich come to mind when the Obama apologists discuss what Rice knew?
It's the only way we can drown out this nonsense.
ExPatriatePen wrote:There's been absolutely no reason brought forth as to why Al-Queda involvement would have been classified.
Then your gripe is with the CIA; they are the ones that edited the briefing that was delivered to Ambassador Rice.
If there was only one source of that information, particularly if it was a human intelligence asset, revealing that we knew there was al-Qaeda involvement so early after the attack would potentially put that asset at direct risk of being compromised.... which could mean everything from simply losing access to additional intelligence from that source, to that asset losing access to the ability to breathe.
Ultimately, I have no problem believing the intel briefing points given to Ambassador Rice were altered by someone at CIA at the direction of someone at the White House. (Which may or may not be problematic) But going after the Ambassador for that act is like throwing stones at the weatherman's car if it rains on your picnic. Not only that, it's focusing effort on the recipient of the results and proceeds of the institutional cock-up that resulted in three or four different versions of the edit history of those talking points and really sorta ignores the institutional cock-up..... and, really, that's the bit that needs fixing.
ExPatriatePen wrote:Personally, I could care less about US military strength in the war on Terror as you put it. But I deeply care when elected and appointed officials take a cavalier attitude when it comes to telling the truth to the American public.
Again..... what evidence is there that concealing this information was cavalier or politically motivated?? And what evidence is there that Ambassador Rice played an affirmative and active role in the concealment of that information? Where is it? It's a very simple question, and it has yet to be answered.
You and the House Republican looney brigade seem content to levy charges of malfeasance and then set about looking for evidence to back up the claim. Usually, in polite society, those activities happen in the reverse order.