She told ABC on September 16 (emphasis mine):
"But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."And she told CBS (emphasis mine):
"We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."No information whatsoever? That's interesting because, based on CIA documents and emails released today, Rice's statement was, without a doubt, a bald-faced lie. Not only was the attack repeated linked to Ansar al-Sharia, but al Qaeda (which Ansar al-Sharia is linked to) was mentioned repeatedly in the back-and-forth emails that argued talking points.
"Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."In reply to this, an email was sent on September 14, at 8:59pm that, "The FBI did not have major concerns with the points." That leads to the question: who changed the talking points?
Attack "linked... to Ansar al-Sharia."
"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya."
We were warned on "September 10... of demonstration."
Other than names that were whited-out, the people who immediately objected to the talking points were all officials high-up in the Obama Administration. Victoria Nuland, spokesperson for the United States Department of State. Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor who was hand picked by Joe Biden. Ben Rhodes, President Obama's foreign policy speech writer. Shawn Turner, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
|"What difference does it make?!"
In fact, on the page labeled "46," an email reads:
"The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document."Take a wild guess who ran the State Department: Hillary Clinton and, at least in most cases, the President of the United States. And the White House wants to tell us that those high in the Administration didn't know?
They are lying, just like Rice lied that fateful Sunday morning.
And a possibly bigger question: who came up with the idea to blame a video? Nuland, Sullivan, Turner, nor Rhodes mention it. Yet they are all very close to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Where did this idea come from that, if true, would have demonstrably helped each of them? Why don't you take a guess?