Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence


#1

Those ‘Right-Winger’ Nut Jobs Again … Huh? :slight_smile:

Congressional Democrats on Sunday distanced themselves from the Obama administration’s explanation of the Benghazi, Libya, attacks in the immediate aftermath of the fatal strikes, amid mounting evidence that suggests the information was revised to intentionally mislead Americans.

The original explanation of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, was written by CIA officials, then revised by State Department and White House officials, according to news reports and witness testimony made available to Fox News.

Removed from the CIA’s so-called talking points were references to “Islamic extremists” and Al Qaeda in Libya And five days later, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made the Sunday talk show rounds to say the attacks were, in fact, “demonstrations” sparked by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

However, the video is never mentioned in the numerous talking-points drafts, according to a Weekly Standard story last week, based in part on a 43-page House report and records of official emails.

“Well, it was scrubbed,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told “Fox News Sunday.” “It was totally inaccurate. There’s no excuse for that. It was false information.

Lynch also acknowledged the talking points were likely revised to reflect President Obama’s decry – with his re-election bid in the balance – that “Al Qaeda is on the run.”

Democrats now critical of Rice’s Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence | Fox News


#2

It took the long enough.


#3

[quote=“sillipuddi, post:1, topic:39348”]
Those ‘Right-Winger’ Nut Jobs Again … Huh? :slight_smile:

Democrats now critical of Rice’s Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence | Fox News
[/quote]Yep, looks like the rats are jumping ship.


#4

Rats they are!


#5

They reached the point where defending the indefensible became untenable. Maybe …