Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al-Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Funny, that’s a different story than the “according to our source” spin CNN was pushing prior to his testimony.
“There’s no dictatorship here, maybe it’s there? No wait maybe it’s under here.”
The crowd cheers and applauds, Obamba takes a bow.
Classified intel assessments going to the political campaign staff for vetting?
That’s a big no-no. Those guys aren’t cleared.
This whole affair stinks to High Heaven.
We watch with satisfaction and horror as the Israeli Air Force takes out a bad guy in Gaza, but the most technically sophisticated and lavishly funded military power in human history was nowhere to be seen in Benghazi.
Who, exactly, has put the hobble and muzzle on America’s capable warriors?
and he said and did squat for weeks and weeks even though he knew the White House story was bogus, while his nation went on Pakistan TV and grovelled to the world by repeating the lie.
So the real question is, why was he covering up for the White House?
Maybe now the somnambulant White House Press Corpse will realize they have been conned by Obama.
On the other hand, maybe not.
Petraeus has just testified to the House that he and the CIA knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack and related specifically to Al Qaeda, and that the Talking Points memo he and the CIA wrote included these details.
He then testified that the final version of these talking points had these facts removed. He had no idea who removed them. And had no idea who provided that altered Talking Points memo to Rice.
In other words, he’s throwing it all back to the White House. I’d suspect Jarrett, Axelrod and Obama. Please note, that since Obama knew that it was a terrorist attack, and had been briefed as such by the CIA, then, how could he allow Rice to go out and say the opposite?
What will Obama do now? It’s becoming obvious that the WH tried to control the narrative around Benghazi, flinging four people to their death, as their narrative rejects the existence of terrorism. Their attempt to put causality on America, via an American made video, failed as the facts came out that showed terrorist attacks against that consulate in the previous months (in June) and frequent requests for more security there, and warnings from both Libya and Egypt of terrorist plans to attack US embassies on Sept 11.
The WH then tried to implicate the CIA by saying that it was the CIA that refused to help; Petraeus instantly wrote a rebuttal memo, and Obama fired him.
Now the CIA is fighting back. Obama has already destroyed Petraeus in this attempt, by using the Chicago tactic of ‘dirt on your hands and so your mouth can’t tell the truth’ against Petraeus. That didn’t work.
Then, Obama has begun his confrontational stance of: If you attack Rice, you attack me. And daring the nation to attack him. He’s relying on his lifelong tactic of aggressive rebuttal, using race and other issues, to prevent his having to deal with facts.
Oh, and Obama is Taking the Fifth, ie, he is claiming that he can’t answer any questions because ‘it’s all under investigation’.
Will he get away with these lies, his destruction of the CIA, and his actually allowing four Americans to be massacred – all for the sake of His Narrative of Conquering Al Qaeda?
Remember what he did about the gun running in Fast and Furious; he ‘took the Fifth’ there as well but this time, by invoking ‘executive privilege’ and refusing to hand over documents. And he won on that; the furor has died down.
The thing about Obama is that he renders himself inviolate. He uses race, he uses privilege, and he’s a pathological liar. Quite the combination.
Why is everyone focusing on Rice?
Obama himself blamed it on a video for 2 weeks.
That is what must be answered.
john g, ah, but Obama slithered out of that, at the second debate, when he used Candy Crowley, who was supposed to be only a moderator and not a co-debater with Obama. He declared that on the very second day, he HAD said it was terrorist, and asked Candy to ‘read the transcript’.
But he hadn’t done that; he had referred to terrorism only in the general sense and didn’t apply it to Benghazi. And he continued to refer to the video for several weeks afterwards.
Plus, IF, IF, he himself considered it terrorism then why would he allow ‘his’ UN ambassador to go on five talk shows and insist it was due to the video? Hmm?
Obama is a master at slithering. An absolute master; he’s a pathological liar and he’ll confront you if you dare to question him, and, heh, if you do, he’ll refuse to answer. It’s under investigation, you see.
The big news today is that Patreus confirmed that the talking points were altered by the white house. It was probably axle grease.
Being a cynic I can believe that Bambam did not know anything about what was going on. I’m sure the White House administration actually runs the show and only tells him what he needs to know or puts it on his teleprompter. That explains why the Zero-in-Chief doesn’t attends the daily intel/security briefings or jets off to Vegas, golf or vacation whenever the fertilizer hits the ventilator.
Maybe now the somnambulant White House Press Corpse will realize they have been conned by Obama.
On the other hand, maybe not.
Posted by: Fred at November 16, 2012 1:54 PM
————————————————–
More like “Well, THIS is a non-starter……..Hmm, wonder what the Kardashian girls are up to today?”
What I’d like to know is that Coptic Christian still in jail in the U.S. for his Youtube trailer, scapegoated by the Obama administration for the American deaths in Benghazi?
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that a Copt was blamed, since the Copts are one of the most persecuted minorities by Muslims in the Middle East.
And I’m sure there are a gazillion obscure Youtube videos out there poking fun at Muslims, but for some reason the Obama Marxist-Islamofascist butt-kissers dug up probably the only one produced by a Coptic Christian.
The guy should sue the U.S. Government for millions after all the smoke clears, and use the money to establish a foundation to help persecuted Copts. Make a really professional documentary on the savagery of Islamic supremacism, etc.
ricardo, yes, he’s been jailed for a year. For violating his probation which apparently was that he wasn’t to use the Internet for a year. But whether HE was the one who posted it, or someone else, is unknown.
The Obama Gang tried to hide the fact that Al Qaeda is alive and thriving, utterly ignoring the massacre of the four Americans, by their pretence that it was all the fault of America, ie, that American video. This failed, and they’ve had to answer questions of why help was rejected. They tried to blame the CIA, and Petraeus fought back, releasing his memo that the CIA had never rejected any requests for help. Obama fired him.
Now, the questions are around who rewrote the memo that Petraeus wrote on day one, that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and rewrote it to say that there was no evidence of such. And who sent out Susan Rice to give her fake story that it was due to the video? The arrow points to and only to, the White House.
But watch Obama slither out of this. He’s a master manipulator.
My assessment is that Petraeus may be being set up as a scapegoat. With all his experience with nasty politics, Petraeus is likely on to this.
I bet Barry was surprised when Petraeus rolled on him.
“Funny, that’s a different story than the “according to our source” spin CNN was pushing prior to his testimony.”
The NOT so funny thing is, their STILL spinning it as (there was two intelligence avenues) even though Petraeus says otherwise.
Blackmail only works if the blackmailee is unwilling to face the consequences. Petraeus is likely facing the worst of it…the wrath of his wife.
It is no coincidence that the CIA opened an investigation on him, as did DoD. They need to do that to continue to exert leverage, threat of additional consequences, reputational and financial ruin.
If Petraeus really only did the one thing wrong, then he can sing, and threaten to sing and all the Obama admin can do is rattle swords. I am sure Petraeus doesnt want to do this, but if I were him I would think that I was being used and be in no mood to compromise.
I said yesterday McCain knows there is something to be found and the noted lack of protection being offered to Obama by senior democratic figures means they think there is something there as well. They will wait till they see if Obama bleeds or not. If he does, then watch out it wont be pretty. If not they will line up with him.
Keep pushing Senators….the important question of who called the stand down order will be the next objective. You wont get that info till you show the weakness on this issue. With Blood in the water others will feel safer to squeal.
Keep going Senators, you are doing your jobs as assigned.
ET has it bang on.
The Democrats needed the ‘al-Quaede’ is defeated narrative to justify slashing military spending … not that any justification is needed.
So, somebody in the White House censored out the facts to fit the narrative.
My guess is Obama himself based on the way he pretended to be the knight in shining armour defending Susan Rice. He was more outraged at that than the death of four Americans, not that Americans don’t die every day in military conflicts.
Rice had nothing to do with it, of course, and was given the talking points that included the video and had the CIA’s assessment of a terrorist attack included.
Rice is under the State Department and was send out as a test of loyalty for a possible promotion to take over Hillary’s spot.
The White House has now tarnished Rice’s reputation but John Kerry is no better a candidate to take over.
Actually Nemo2, Kim K is getting death threats for tweeting support for Israel. She has bigger balls and more brains than Obama.
When is the next U.S. election?
Phantom, yes, Obama probably was surprised by Petraeus turning on him. But, as Stephen noted, Petraeus now has nothing to lose. And, I’d bet his agenda now, is to save the CIA, for Obama had started to use them as his scapegoat.
Now, as Stephen points out, we’ll see what Congress does. But remember, Obama slithered out of Fast and Furious; remember, they held Holder in contempt of Congress by refusing to hand over documents, and Obama saved Holder by invoking ‘Executive Privilege’. And Holder continues on right now, safe and secure.
So, my bet is that Obama, who has honed his entire life around manipulation and lies, will slither out of this as well. It’s amoral, it’s a violation of justice, but Obama has no connection to either of those two values.
She has bigger balls and more brains than Obama.
Posted by: Greg at November 16, 2012 3:43 PM
—————————————————
Which isn’t that difficult. LOL
There is an issue here of CNNs involvement in spreading the lie.
As the story was breaking the first video broadcast was CNN footage of the Egypt protests whicah also featured an organized attack on the US embassy, only in Cairo. While they were showing footage of the Cairo event they were talking about the Benghazi event.
Then they showed footage of what the CNN commentator described as live broadcast from a stringer in Syria. This footage showed crowds waving placards and and the usual crap from the muzzie rabble PLUS it showed some armed men breaching the embassy gate and scaling the wall. The on air commentator began to describe the attack and mention was made of terrorist involvement.
The on air commentary then stopped in mid sentence as if being interrupted. Then the CNN broadcast went to commercial and then came back with the footage from Egypt. While showing the footage from Egypt this time they continued to talk about Benghazi and introduced the “youtube video” meme. The broadcast was confused and contradictory while plainly being directed away from the actual Benghazi event video and local on the scene coverage.
While this was going on the text banner at the bottom of the screen captioned the footage as being from Cairo events. Then the banner disappeared leaving no indication of the source of the video footage.
The on air broadcast then went on to repeat that the “protests” were the result of the so called anti-mohamad movie from you tube.
I have never witnessed such a blatant effort to backtrack and obfuscate in an ongoing broadcast. It is absolutely clear that the Obama administration has its hand firmly up the butt of CNNs broadcast producers.
Of course the coverage ever since has been the usual efforts to ignore or misdirect or bury any information they have on the story. The usual safety blanket for Obama.
But, the coverage on November 11, 2012 went way beyond the usual and IMO represents blatant fraud as the tools of a corrupt and incompetent administration.
If only that were actually illegal.
Petraeus for President in 2016. cheers;
A fine discussion thus far…
@Stephen: There already is blood in the water, namely the “Benghazi 4”.
The “Obama-Nation(tm)” is behaving like an equivocating viper on this issue; and attempted to throw the CIA under the bus, by outing Petraeus’s sexual infidelity. He is trying every trick under the book to squelch any inquiry into the true state of affairs on Benghazi.
Like Pontius Pilate the “Obama-Nation(tm) belongs firmly in the “What is truth?” camp. Petraeus has now confirmed that the whole attack was ‘terrorist based’ from start to finish and communicated same to the POTUS. The conclusion is that only the POTUS changed the message for POLITICAL PURPOSES.
In short, the POTUS OWNS THE DEATHS IN BENGHAZI..!
Whatever Gen Petraeus’s individual failings, he did not fail in his duty, although some may quibble with his timeliness.
In short, the “Obama-Nation(tm)” is not only a liar but a scumbag as well.
Finis…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I think it would be more efficient and useful to investigate the lies that lead to 5000 dead Americans than 4.
Hans – exactly right.
Please, lets not forget that “Mr. Coptic Movie Maker” is not actually Coptic, nor is he a Coptic Christian.
Charles Adler interviewed Walid Shoebat, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a few weeks back and stated that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was not a Copt, he had in fact been instrumental in selling meth to raise funds for Hezbollah. There is not a chance that any Christian would raise funds for a Muslim terrorist organization, no matter how screwed up he was.
Why else would the government come and arrest him and get him out of circulation, unable to be exposed or interviewed and opening up the can of worms that this movie had nothing to do with the middle-east uprising.
Now he is prison for the next year on supposed breach of probation, shut down to any more spotlight.
Who writes these scripts? This is Wag the Dog on steroids.
Just like the banking scandal, there will be no convictions and nobody spending any time in prison. Just a whole pile of money transferring into numbered accounts and driving the next bus faster over the cliff.
Hey folks! All this is brought to you by the most honest, transparent and open government in the history of the good ol’ USofA
Hans, it’s worse. Obama ordered the stand down for political purposes. If they went in they knew that their whole Lybia/Al Quaeda success story would blow up in their face. 4 dead so he could be re-elected. Truly disgusting and if that ever sets in watch out.
Yes QNDPS, use the typical leftie approach, when you don’t like the story, try to change the channel – not going to work around here but will do just fine with the Dem controlled US MSM. You sound like you work for them US MSM – so give your unsubstantiated BS a rest (at least I think it is because I actually don’t know what you’re talking about).
Anyway, notwithstanding separatist’s unsubstantiated blatherings, there’s likely far more to this story than a coverup of an AQ attack. The real story, IMO (that’s all at this point) is that the Libyan consular staff and CIA, under executive orders, were facilitating arms transfers to groups they thought were friendly to their cause only to realize, too late, they had been infiltrated by AQ.
I’m not saying this is why 4 Americans died, though that’s possible though I think improbable – no that was the tin eared president refusing to accept what we now know was current info that a terrorist attack was unfolding. Remember this president lives in a bubble world where his narcissitic ego thinks he is all knowing. He retired from the action to get some rest for the next day of campaigning. When he woke up/revisited the affair, 4 Americans were not dead, hence the need for a coverup/fake narrative.
No big deal, the whole Dem campaign was based on one fake narrative after another. My prediction is that this event will be covered up, first with an investigation can’t discuss narrative which eventually disappears, followed by the “well that’s known already/old news.” The Grits used it to great effect during the sponsorship scandal until somebody went to jail and Paul Martin was determined to not be so cool after all by the MSM.
In the meantime QNDPS will continue to run intereference for his statist, socialist allies.
The big question in all of this is-Who thought up the idea of using an unimportant, unseen and unacknowledged You Tube video as a reason for the attack??
Ah, quebecois, yes, those 3,000 plus who died on September 11, 2001, require an acknowledgment of the reality of Islamic fascism.
As well, you can check out the ongoing list of Islamic terrorist attacks around the world. Just google the phrase. They’re in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Egypt, Russia, Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria, China, Somalia, etc. Busy, busy, busy.
And there are also the vicious attacks against women and children in these same areas, against girls going to school, women ‘looking at a man’, and so on. These aren’t due to terrorism but to cultural dysfunctionality, but the terrorists support such an ideology.
So, you are right to bring up the disastrous results of Islamic fascism around the world.
Everything that’s sick & poisoned with American politics in one news story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBYA_ATTACK_RICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-16-11-05-32
Susan Rice either lied outright or publicly uttered the lies of others. But she can’t be criticized because of her gender & skin colour. 🙁
Goddummit …. I am so sick of people obsessing about that dumbass Rice!
She was sent out to provide a distration… she does not … did not … likely never will have a clue about what has really gone on.
It’s the same d@mned thing as trolls spewing nonsense on blog threads.
Anyone who allows that BS to distract from the real issues is just a sucker.
Robert W, right, that’s a red herring from the WH, trying to make the American public feel guilty for questioning what the WH is doing.
But Rice IS accountable. She’s not just a lowly secretary going out and reading her boss’s memo. She’s a senior administrator. Obama used her, that’s obvious, but she allowed it.
Meanwhile, the reality is that the CIA Talking Points memo originally included that the attack was due to terrorism, and by the time Rice got it, these references had been removed and replaced with ‘extremists’, which of course, refers to religious extremist stances or anti-Video groups, not terrorism.
And even though the WH knew that the attack was due to terrorism, they did not correct her. Obama said to ‘blame him’ not Rice for what she said. OK, I’ll do just that. He and his minions changed the memo, for political reasons, because his narrative is that Obama is the Conqueror of Islamic terrorism. The fact that these groups are thriving and increasing – piffle to the amoral and unprincipled person that is Obama.
Obama will throw everyone in his inner circle under the bus to save his own ass. Narcissists are like that.
I wonder if Obambam, dictator for life, has a shortened reign in store since he filled the luggage hold on his campaign bus with the CIA.
So much hatred about Obama on here! You’d think he won the election. Oh wait, he did!! hahaha And I thought you were just a bunch of angry middle-aged white men before, you nutbags must just be foaming at the mouth now!! So much fun watching rightwing wingnuts lose elections when for seem reason (stupidity, ignorance, mass delusions) they didn’t see it coming. How does it feel to be so wrong about so many things?!! And here you are now blaming Obama for Benghazi. You twits will never learn. Quit watching Sun/Faux news, quit reading what rightwing inbreds write on here and quit listening to fat old white men on rightwing radio and maybe then you might have a clue about what is really happening in the world! Or carry on with your blissfully ignorant lives and continue to be wrong about every issue (ie elections-Alberta-U.S., polls, global warming, etc., etc.).
ET — Something very peculiar about that Candy Crowley interruption. She is called upon to verify that Obama calling the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism is in the transcript (no it is not), but the idea was planted with Crowley several weeks earlier in an interview with David Axelrod who says something like “as you know, Candy. the President called it an act of terrorism the next day in the Rose Garden speech” — of course she did not know this, but took it at face value, and later thinks that this is what she knows. I think they actually may have been using NDP techniques to elicit this response from her during the debates — very sinister.
@ STEVE at November 16, 2012 9:49 PM
Please tell us what’s happening in the real world. Try to use small words so that we may understand.
Has anyone actually seen this film — or just the trailor?
Why would Nakoula Basseley produce this film. Even if he is a Copt (which has been questioned) doing this makes no sense — particularly if there is not an actual film. His role in this is very murky.
Could this have been a set up from the get-go — that is, he is paid to produce a small film clip for which the government has a later use. Presumably, the film was produced in June or July — and no one paid any attention, until some Saudi TV personality broadcast this and then a bunch of Muslims are provoked via Twitter to go out and protest. Interesting that they did not get much response in Benghazi, which would have been useful to them. I think we need to know more about Mr. Basseley. Can’t journalists visit people in prison? Why was he not allowed to use the Internet? What had he done before? Really, I think that any of us could produce such a film and it would never ever get noticed. Aspects of this have to have been planned.
I also want to know what Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi on Sept. 11th. Do we know? Has anyone asked? It is an odd day for doing business in a dangerous place. If he had gone to attend a meeting, and if the people he was meeting with picked the date, he may have been set up. What makes sense to me is that this was all about an exchange of armaments. Someone speculated that he was negotiating with Libyan terrorists to get back a bunch of armaments — big ones. We need to know more about that.
original Rick — Yes!
Steve, the only thing this man is competent at, is lying, some qualifications. But for people with no pride, well he’s your man.
Not even a child buys into this fish story. Let alone adults. This is a cover up only a Banana Republic , full of illiterate folks would believe. Even that I highly doubt. The MSM are covering up Murder for their Messiah. Maleficence for the cause of their love of socialsim.
If not coving up as well for the cause of Islam.
‘o’… O my Gosh!, O brother. O for petes sake she’s back. Incoherence at it’s best.
LindaL, yes, I agree with the problems with the Candy Crawley interruption.
The thing is, the Obama team use the modern media, as a major propaganda tool, very effectively. Notice that Obama rarely takes press conferences where he is subjected to unscripted questions that he and his team do not control. They are, as was the Third Reich, focused on propaganda, not information.
I think this is obvious with the Benghazi terrorist attack. Notice how they changed the script from information to propaganda. It began with data, ie, information, objectively observed in real time and voice. The objective reality of this information was then removed by relabelling it as ‘the fog of war’, and the rewriting began.
Instead of the reality of calls for help, we get ‘no-one asked us for help’. Instead of no help was sent, we get, ‘I ordered all my staff to help them’. Instead of no demonstration seen or heard, we get ‘a spontaneous demonstration’. Instead of terrorist attack, we get ‘no terrorism but a demonstration’. Instead of planned and organized, we get ‘spontaneous’.
Instead of warnings having been sent months before, and warnings from both Libay and Egypt that militants were planning attacks, we get ‘silence’. No response from the Obama administration.
And, then, we get the impressive use of authority to bolster the Obama team’s message that it was not Al Qaeda (which the Great One has vanquished) but was due to ‘bad America’..and its video. So, the US Ambassador to the UN (why her?) goes on five television shows to claim that it was all ‘our fault for making that video’. Obama and Hillary Clinton make a video to show in Pakistan, apologizing for ‘that video’. Obama goes to the UN to apologize for ‘that video’.
Quite the propaganda machine.
Then, facts continue to surface. The Obama propaganda machine tries to blame faults on the CIA, who, it claims, refused help. Petraeus, who had been threatened to fall in line, recants and puts outo a memo that the CIA was never asked for help. He throws that request and its refusal right back to Obama. So, Obama fires him.
And now, we find that Petraeus original memo, the facts, was changed to remove that reference to terrorism. Who changed it? I think we know it was the Obama team, but, propaganda is all about lies, and no-one in that team is able to recognize truth anymore.
Facts versus fiction. The Obama team deal only with fiction, and as such, every word is a lie, for they are alienated from reality.
Obama’s problem is that if he and his minions are seen to be fast and loose at throwing folks under the bus for not falling in line, they may soon find themselves quite alone when confronted by an event that requires assistance from all quarters.
CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest of the puppet squad don’t do the financial or military stuff too well. For that Obama needs the people he’s currently attacking and assigning blame to.
Good luck finding help for the crisis Barry.
Obama’s problem is that if he and his minions are seen to be fast and loose at throwing folks under the bus for not falling in line, they may soon find themselves quite alone when confronted by an event that requires assistance from all quarters.
CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest of the puppet squad don’t do the financial or military stuff too well. For that Obama needs the people he’s currently attacking and assigning blame to.
Good luck finding help for the crisis Barry.
Joseph, you are more hopeful of the existence of freedom in the US than I am.
The Obama team, which controls ‘knowledge’ (I won’t call it information because information must be based in reality and the Obama knowledge is unrelated to reality)…by virtue of the media, and its ability to control the release and format of information, controls the US population.
Certainly, the Tea Party, which is focused strictly around economic issues, is still around, but it lacks the authority of Obama’s incredible control of government.
By Obama’s control, I mean that he ignores Congress. He ignores the Rule of Law. He ignores the Constitution. He does and says whatever he wants, and challenges you to counter him. Since he has the governmental authority, since he and his minions can put someone who made a video into jail for a year, can fire a top general for an indifferent marital affair, can fire other generals for whatever reason he wants, can make Executive Orders at will….well, what the US now has is its very own Dictator.
@ LindaL at November 16, 2012 11:58 PM
“Has anyone actually seen this film ?”
I did see it before it was yanked and my only impression was how childish and poorly it was done. Like a grade 5 school play except the acting was worse. About 13 minutes long. I watched the whole thing, looking for the part that would upset Muslims. The Mohammed upsetting part I could see was related to a childhood joke I remember where ” I was kissing my girlfriend goodnight when she crossed her legs and broke my glasses”. Wont go into details but it only hinted at that. Other than that it was just a 99 cent project with fake background and the usual Jew bashing. The impact on me was so great I forgot the entire dialogue and suddenly the film was famous….and gone. No way that piece of crap should have upset anyone with a IQ above 50.