Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion 
Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? Yours seem to be consistently biased in a direction guided by mostly "liberal" media opinion and the avoidance of what you consider biased "extremist" opinions.
All this smoking gun talk is hilarious.
Your sense of humor is rather dark, sardonic, and biased.
The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations.
Appearance is that slanted view of the biased observer.
Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...
Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.
-spence |
Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second bullet point:
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?
And the first bullet point:
"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."
Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?
And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?
The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.