@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
You have a remarkable inclination to find fine distinctions on which to base tenuous or flatly false assertions.
It seems it is you that does that.
Quote:
The ignored requests for added security involved both Tripoli and the auxilaary forces in Bengazi. The Secretary of State and the chiefs of all Federal agencies are responsible for all the actions their agencies take - that's what accountability means in government. I doubt that you have any real knowledge of what Secretaries of State do or don't do in response to requests from Ambassadors in volatile, troubled areas such as Libya was then. Subsequent correspondence has confirmed Clinton's knowledge of the real origin of the attack even before she repeated the video canard. The DOD and CIA had confirmed the al Quaeda link to the assault within a day of the attack - all that is on the record.
One minor request for Benghazi before the decision was made to pretty much close it down.
Oh, right... That must be why you were so hell bent on blaming Condi Rice for the attacks on US embassies when she was SoS. Oh... wait.. I don't have any real knowledge, unlike you who is so willing to ignore all other attacks on US embassies and focus on just one.
Cherry picking of emails doesn't prove anything other then you are looking for any evidence to support your preconceived bias.
I find it interesting how you are willing to believe some of the emails but not others.The emails after the attack are full of speculations and unconfirmed reports. Some of those unconfirmed reports were told to the media. Now you complain that those unconfirmed reports weren't correct but recite other of those unconfirmed reports as being correct.
