Finally we find out "What difference...does it make?"
Who would have thought that ABC News would be the news agency that would break the news as to why the "Campaigner in Chief" and his minions would spend their days and nights after the attack in Libya covering up the real reasons for the attack, and the real perpetrators of the attack?
Yes now we find out that the changes to the so called "talking points" were not made for the purpose of security, or clarity as we were told.
No the real reason was expressed IMHO best in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland when she took issue with including information about the real reasons and causes for the attacks was because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
And there you have it, the true enemies (according to Ms. Nuland) are the congressional members and that is why the real reasons and real perpetrators must be hidden from the American people (at least and until after the presidential election in November).
Most historians agree that the real reason that President Nixon had to leave office had little to do the Watergate break in, and more to do with the cover up that occurred after the break in.
Only brain dead liberals like u are too stupid to not recognize that obama and his administration are liars, and have no integrity or respect for the truth. So keep ur head in the sand and keep being stupid..
What makes it so ridiculous to say that, is the President himself gave a Benghazi speech the morning after the attack and said it was acts of terror. Sorry to pop your balloon. Nothing you or ten faux newses can say will change that. It is all for nothing. The real perpetrators weren't caught, and no one ever said the video guy did the attack. That is just pain ignorant thinking to say that. He may have inspired them, and no one knows that yet. Nothing was covered up.
"what differnce does it make" refers to Hilary's answer about the insane questioning months after about the name of the attack. We all know it was an attack and four Americans were killed, what is more important, that tragedy, or a name?
The Sandy Hook shooting was also an act of terror. What's your point? He said it was an act of terror, not a terrorist attack. As much as the spinners would like there is a difference. He was still saying it was because of the video days later and Rice was saying it longer than that, after they all knew for sure that it had nothing to do with the video. WHY?
"What makes it so ridiculous to say that, is the President himself gave a Benghazi speech the morning after the attack and said it was acts of terror. Sorry to pop your balloon."'
Well, I suppose it's possible Susan Rice was out on 5 different networks four days after his Rose Garden speech calling him either a liar or horribly confused:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." Rose Garden- President Obama 9/12
Susan Rice 4 days later representing the Administration: “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,”