FANTASY OR MANIFESTATION, OR MANIPULATION ; Rather, the most important question that must be answered was about an immense intelligence failure that caused the Secretary of State to declare a non-existent demonstration as the cause. "In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials (SoS Clinton) linked the attack to the spreading protests over an American-made, anti-Islamic film . . .Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack." CBS News
The video story was made up. It was a fantasy created and presented falsely by someone, apparently to rationalize the Benghazi massacre and deceive the public. That someone must be named by Hillary Clinton (who announced the video the next morning as motive). The resulting pan Islamic rioting from sensationalizing the facade killed more that 50 people!
The person the Secretary of State names must be brought before the public to explain. What was the motivation for the prevarication? The video "excuse" was a lie; indeed, the independent review announced that there was no protest at all. The kindest conclusion would be that a protest was an ignorant assumption. If this was a product of American Intelligence, as the Secretary of State has contended, we should worry.
The public was deceived by CIA dissembling and needs to know the reason. If our intelligence is so feckless, so wrong and so inclined to invent fantasies here, then what about the nuclear situation in Iran? Who has control of nukes in a radicalized Pakistan that tortures and imprisons the doctor that helped us get bin Laden? Etc?
Congress must investigate the video story thoroughly and ask Mrs. Clinton where she got the "protest out of control" illusion. Two huge related questions critical to oversight remain: Who invented the deception and what was the motivation for the sham. The Secretary cannot be excused by merely stating "I accept responsibility." That is a vacuous announcement without meaning.
FANTASY OR MANIFESTATION, OR MANIPULATION ; Rather, the most important question that must be answered was about an immense intelligence failure that caused the Secretary of State to declare a non-existent demonstration as the cause. "In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials (SoS Clinton) linked the attack to the spreading protests over an American-made, anti-Islamic film . . .Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack." CBS News
ReplyDeleteThe video story was made up. It was a fantasy created and presented falsely by someone, apparently to rationalize the Benghazi massacre and deceive the public. That someone must be named by Hillary Clinton (who announced the video the next morning as motive). The resulting pan Islamic rioting from sensationalizing the facade killed more that 50 people!
The person the Secretary of State names must be brought before the public to explain. What was the motivation for the prevarication? The video "excuse" was a lie; indeed, the independent review announced that there was no protest at all. The kindest conclusion would be that a protest was an ignorant assumption. If this was a product of American Intelligence, as the Secretary of State has contended, we should worry.
The public was deceived by CIA dissembling and needs to know the reason. If our intelligence is so feckless, so wrong and so inclined to invent fantasies here, then what about the nuclear situation in Iran? Who has control of nukes in a radicalized Pakistan that tortures and imprisons the doctor that helped us get bin Laden? Etc?
Congress must investigate the video story thoroughly and ask Mrs. Clinton where she got the "protest out of control" illusion. Two huge related questions critical to oversight remain: Who invented the deception and what was the motivation for the sham. The Secretary cannot be excused by merely stating "I accept responsibility." That is a vacuous announcement without meaning.