Thursday, November 15, 2012

CBS - 'CIA talking points for Rice never mentioned terrorism'

Of course, even taken as true, this completely misses the point. Who was pushing the video? Not to mention enough time had passed with enough information having already come to light for Rice to have known regardless.

Video embedded below.

"It seems interesting this CBS scoop comes shortly before both the current and former directors of the CIA will testify as to what they know about the terrorist attack on our consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Why, it’s almost as if someone at the White House or State Department wanted to follow up on Barack Obama’s defense of Susan Rice during yesterday’s press conference and pre-empt any potential fallout from whatever Mike Morell and David Petraeus have to say today and tomorrow.

Naah. I’m sure this is just another in the series of amazing coincidences regarding timing of revelations over the last nine weeks in the Benghazi story.
Why wouldn’t she have had access to other information? Because Rice had no operational responsibility for anything other than relations with the United Nations. So why did the “White House,” as Obama put it yesterday, ask her to go on five talk shows on Sunday to impart this story to the media and the public? That request had to come from Obama himself, and it bypassed other more likely candidates for that assignment such as Tom Donilon, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, or David Petraeus, all of whom had some responsibility for the incident. And here’s a related question — why didn’t those five media outlets raise that very question when the “White House” offered Rice as a spokesperson for that explanation? Didn’t that seem even a little curious – especially when the Libyan President was saying exactly the opposite?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow