Bombshell: Petraeus to tell Congress that he knew “almost immediately” Benghazi was work of terrorists; Update: Petraeus, King dispute earlier testimony

posted at 8:51 am on November 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I mentioned yesterday that the sudden CBS scoop that got them Susan Rice’s talking points from the CIA seemed a little too coincidental — and too self-serving — to be the full story. This morning, CNN answers with a scoop of its own before former CIA Director David Petraeus briefs a Senate committee on what he knows about the Benghazi debacle. Not only did Petraeus conclude “almost immediately” that the attack on the consulate was a well-planned terrorist attack, the talking points published by CBS didn’t come from Petraeus. According to CNN, Petraeus will tell the Senate committee that those talking points “came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points”:

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, “[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points,” Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn’t accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

“When he looks at what Susan Rice said,” CNN reports, “here is what Petraeus’s take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.”

If this is what Petraeus tells the Senate committee, he’ll tell the House committee the same thing. Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

Update: Petraeus testified for 90 minutes to the House committee first (not the Senate as I wrote above), of which the panel spent “ten seconds” on his affair with Paula Broadwell, according to Rep. Peter King.  However, King and Petraeus had a dispute about his initial briefing to Congress, which turned at least contentious:

King said that Petraeus maintained that he said early on that the ambush was a result of terrorism, but King added that he remembered Petraeus and the Obama administration downplaying the role of an al Qaeda affiliate in the attack in the days after Stevens was killed. The administration initially said the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against a video that lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.

“That is not my recollection” of what Petraeus initially said, King said today.

The congressman suggested that pressing Petraeus was awkward at times.

“It’s a lot easier when you dislike the guy,” King said.

Petraeus moved from that hearing to the Senate Intelligence Committee for more testimony.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

King said that Petraeus maintained that he said early on that the ambush was a result of terrorism, but King added that he remembered Petraeus and the Obama administration downplaying the role of an al Qaeda affiliate in the attack in the days after Stevens was killed…….
“That is not my recollection” of what Petraeus initially said, King said today.
The congressman suggested that pressing Petraeus was awkward at times.
“It’s a lot easier when you dislike the guy,” King said.

I am having a hard time liking him

So where are the witnesses from the 30 plus who were rescued?
amr on November 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Yes, their silence has become deafening.
petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Has a single survivor been identified by name? What is the exact count of survivors? How many were Americans? If survivors were Americans, why doesn’t the committee subpoena the Americans?

The committee is not even asking what is being asked on HA. That tells me this is a dog and pony show

entagor on November 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM

and now all you can do is slip around in your Santorum.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Holy cow, Ed.

rogerb on November 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports.

Thank you, General. The American people appreciate your (belated) candor. Now can you please confirm that the President did in fact issue an order to “do all that is necessary” to protect the people in danger on the night of Sept 11, 2012 and if so, who countermanded that order and told potential rescuers to stand down?

This is the only question I want answered. Everything else is bulls**t.

RobertE on November 16, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Dang it. Block quoted the wrong part!

RobertE on November 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Maybe Romney should look at the polls he believed and the attacks he did not take before he curses the peons for approving of programs that seem to hand them stuff.

IlikedAUH2O on November 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

‘That seem to hand them stuff’???? seriously, I live in California and I can assure you that the handing of stuff is as real as you are, and not ‘seeming’, and you better believe it that Amerika is turning into Kalifornia…It would be interesting to see your reaction when you have to open your wallet wider to pay for more (real, not seeming/imaginary) free stuff for he julias and flukes of this land…see the free college education for everybody that Obama already hinted at, etc…Romney is dead right about the free stuff, you can bury your head in the sand for as long as you please, and tell to yourself like Jindal does, that people don’t like/want free stuff, and that all we need is an articulate, conservative leader and people will vote for him…yeah, good luck with that…ever heard of the Stockholm syndrome, take a look at Europe, the leftists buried that continent in debt and mismanagement and people keep electing them…care to know why?? Yes, the entitlements and free stuff that they can’t let go of even when they are on the brink of precipice…and for whatever reasons you think that here it will be different, people will reject free stuff because….yeah, right, whatever…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Hmmm. Axelrod et al had access to classified info? That’s what they’re really trying to hide? Top of second page.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 12:54 PM

This makes sense now that Kent Conrad made a statement today emphasizing the “fact” that Susan Rice was only giving the unclassified talking points that the entire intelligence community signed off on..

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

The committee is not even asking what is being asked on HA. That tells me this is a dog and pony show

entagor on November 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Bread and (secret committee) circuses for everyone!

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Has a single survivor been identified by name? What is the exact count of survivors? How many were Americans? If survivors were Americans, why doesn’t the committee subpoena the Americans?

The committee is not even asking what is being asked on HA. That tells me this is a dog and pony show

entagor on November 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM

They are probably all CIA operatives…and they will go like ‘we can’t blow their covers’ blah, blah…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

“It’s a lot easier when you dislike the guy,” King said.

You don’t like Obama. Impeach him. Don’t care if it’s for Benghazi or F&F or NBPP or whatever, you’d be doing great work for your country.

sauldalinsky on November 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Demento is a better moniker for you.

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Produce the CBA or GTFO. Barry

can_con on November 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM

and now all you can do is slip around in your Santorum.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Holy cow, Ed.

rogerb on November 16, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I second this.

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Call Vegas and put your $$ on one of these:

Valerie Jarrett
David Axelrod

If the idea (deleting the al-Qaeda reference) didn’t originate with one of them, it was most certainly vetted and approved by them.

IndieDogg on November 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Wait there a sec. So, Petraeus now says he knew immediately this was a terrorist attack and yet 3 days later, while testifying to Congress (on TV) he said this was nothing but a web video related protest? So, was he lying then or is he lying now? Or both?

And are Congress critters so stupid and amnesia ridden that not one of them remembers any of this?

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Wait there a sec. So, Petraeus now says he knew immediately this was a terrorist attack and yet 3 days later, while testifying to Congress (on TV) he said this was nothing but a web video related protest? So, was he lying then or is he lying now? Or both?

And are Congress critters so stupid and amnesia ridden that not one of them remembers any of this?

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Rep King already reminded him of that during the hearing today. He told Petraeus clearly that this is not his recollection of Petraeus’ first testimony.

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

What do you want to bet that David “Baghdad Bob” Axlerod was the scum that changed the CIA talking points?

ultracon on November 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

BENGHAZI……….nothingburger.

it’s a head fake like the whole birth certificate issue. The right has been carping about this for 2 months and nothing.

#rightwingfail……again.

PappyD61 on November 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Breaking:

WASHINGTON (AP) — An Obama administration official says a Tampa Bay socialite whose emails triggered the eventual downfall of CIA director David Petraeus visited the White House three times this year with her sister, twice eating in the Executive Mansion mess.

weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

riddick, my speculation is that Petraeus knew that it was terroorist, and testified to Congress that it was the video, under threat from Obama of losing his job.

But then Obama went too far. When questions arose about ‘who denied help to the Benghazi people’…the WH suggested it was the CIA. That flipped Petraeus, who effectively said: ‘There goes my career but I’m not allowing Obama to destroy the CIA’. So, he sent out the memo that the CIA did NOT refuse any aid to Benghazi. And Obama instantly fired him.

Now, Petraeus has nothing to lose. He can tell the truth. This means that he has flung the whole thing back to Obama and the WH. THEY were the ones who refused aid; they were the ones who altered the memo to say it was ‘the video that caused it’. Remember, since Obama knew, absolutely knew, that it was due to terrorism, then how could he allow Rice to go out and say the opposite? Heh – because that’s the Obama Narrative: terrorism does not exist.

Now, will Obama slither out of this? So far, he’s slithered out of Fast and Furious, declaring ‘executive privilege’ and refusing to provide documents and testimony. He’s managed to keep his college records totally hidden – why – to hide his grades or his enlistment as a foreign student? He’s managed to ignore Congress, make illegal appointments when the Congress was NOT in recess…and so on. Will he slither out of this as well?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Interesting comment out of Rep. King.
He said that no one else who testified before the committes, Clapper, Morell etc., knew who changed the CIA talking points.
By doing that, they admit that changes were made, no ?
Also, after both State and WH processed the info in this “inter-agency” cluster, it is no longer a product of the intellegence community. It has automatically been politicized.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Breaking:

WASHINGTON (AP) — An Obama administration official says a Tampa Bay socialite whose emails triggered the eventual downfall of CIA director David Petraeus visited the White House three times this year with her sister, twice eating in the Executive Mansion mess.
weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Carvell was out trolling with his dollar bill again.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Rep King already reminded him of that during the hearing today. He told Petraeus clearly that this is not his recollection of Petraeus’ first testimony.

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

And ETAB.

I hear what you’re saying, but don’t buy it. No way, no how. If Petraeus really wanted to do what’s right after the fact, he would have said something prior to elections.

I don’t buy anything anyone in the admin says, and this includes Petraeus. An honorable person would not leave people to be murdered. He’s just another career hack at this point who got caught.

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 2:18 PM

So where are the witnesses from the 30 plus who were rescued?
amr on November 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Yes, their silence has become deafening.
petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Has a single survivor been identified by name? What is the exact count of survivors? How many were Americans? If survivors were Americans, why doesn’t the committee subpoena the Americans?

The committee is not even asking what is being asked on HA. That tells me this is a dog and pony show

entagor on November 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I suspect that many more than four Americans died in Benghazi or in hospitals shortly thereafter. Because most of them were CIA, we are not going to be given names or numbers. They are just stars on a wall. Convenient protocol for hiding a massive cf.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM

And let’s not forget that latest and greatest from CIA, as of this week?, is that no one in Benghazi asked for help. Helped out by the already discussed (above) magical disappearance of all the Benghazi survivors.

Petreaus lied then and is lying now. CIA must have a record and name of the person they passed the report to in WH admin. Unless he outs that particular person this is all a massive coverup with Petraeus playing along.

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Remember how upset you were about Pat Tillman? That was a real cover up. Remember all the investigations you were clamoring for?

This has nothing to do with anyone dying you lying sack. This is completely about you teabaggers hating Obowma.

And, you can see the fear and desperation here now. I think it is setting in that you can’t lazily assume that all the tried and true racist white hairs from yesteryear will save your ass at the polls.

Gotta say that America is finally looking up. Who knew the Reagan era would be so short and ineffective.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Actually, you’re the one showing fear and desperation here, by the fact that you’ve been reduced to desperately trying to hijack this thread and deflecting it to a totally unrelated story.

Enjoy your next 4 years, Kemo Sabe.

Z———-

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 2:39 PM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

What goes around, comes around. Your date with soiled diapers will come one day.

Old Fritz on November 16, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Funny how “teabagger’ term is so familiar to so many liberals. They must be so used to it by now that they don’t even bother wiping their chin off before speaking.

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

riddick, no, you are misquoting the article on the CIA.

It isn’t the case that the CIA is saying that ‘no-one in Benghazi asked for help’. They are saying that no-one asked the CIA for help. That’s completely different.

I suspect the Benghazi people asked the State Dept, and Sec of Defense and WH for help. That is, the WH has been trying to pin the total blame for the Benghazi massacre on the CIA. The CIA has been fighting back against this agenda of the WH.

I think that Petraeus’ first talking points memo asserted that it was a terrorist attack, and the WH removed these facts from the memo they gave to Rice to publicize. Then, the WH moved in on Petraeus and told him that they need to reduce the image of it being a terrorist attack and IF he wants his job, he’ll suggest that it had a lot to do with the video. That was Petraeus’ basic error. He obliged the WH.

But then, the WH, having to answer the new emerging public information that help had been requested and refused, tried to pin that refusal on the CIA. That ended Petraeus’ going along with the WH, and he issued the memo that the CIA had NOT refused help. So Obama fired him.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Note also that King is saying that it was also an ‘inside’ job (inside the Libyan military/police). That is, the US was forbidden to have any US military protecting their territory (consulate) with guns OUTSIDE of the walls of the consulate. Only Libyans are allowed on the outside.

The surveillance video that King and others in the Investigation Committee just saw, showed the Libyan police in a van outside the gates of the compound. Oh – and no demonstration. But, 20 seconds before the actual terrorist attack, they took off in their van. And then, came the attack.

As others point out, the other survivors are invisible. But I don’t think that they are the crux of the battle that is ongoing in Washington now. It’s been accepted that it was terrorist. Therefore, they have little to add to the tale.

The battle now is over Who changed the Talking Points memo; Who authorized the Tale of the Video when it was obvious from the start there was no demonstration. Who sent out Rice to babble her fake tale? Who made Petraeus give his first inane testimony? In my view, the arrow points in only one direction. Obama’s White House. And the battle for truth is between Him and the CIA. He’s out to destroy the latter. And he’s a master at manipulation and lies.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Gotta say that America is finally looking up. Who knew the Reagan era would be so short and ineffective.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

you truly are a pathetic idiot. continue to look up for your freebies, moocher, they won’t be there for too long :)…4 years is just that, 4 years :)

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM

the lsm is off its rocker…

they are sayin susan rice is TOTALLY blameless and it’s the stupid GOP who are trying to create a scandal…

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Isn’t any body going to ask why and who did not send in a rescue team?? Where did the stand down orders come from,,better yet,,,,,WHO.

retiredeagle on November 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM

No, Susan Rice is NOT totally blameless. You could make such a claim only if she were akin to a secretary, who had simply come out to read a statement from her Boss.

Susan Rice is an accredited senior administrator, not a lowly secretary, and therefore, she must be held responsible for what she does.

If she, in her authority as that senior administrator of the WH, as the Ambassador to the UN, told the American people that Benghazi was caused by an American-made video, then, she is responsible for this statement.

What the WH is doing now, is yet another diversion!! The WH is trying to deflect public anger from their own action of insisting that the Benghazi massacre was due to a video, from their own action of refusing assistance, and from their own action of tampering with the CIA memo that insisted it was a terrorist attack…to the red herring of Susan Rice.

Heh, the WH is now attacking the public for being upset at Susan Rice’s false claims! The WH is trying to make the public feel guilty for being angry. That’s a common defensive tactic, to blame the person who is making the accusation..to deflect attention from the person who caused the problem.

But, we, the public have every right to be angry at not merely her but above all at the White House who told her to go out and tell that story. And who refused aid. And who rewrote the memo. And who allowed four Americans to be massacred. We have every right to confront this White House and Obama and hold them accountable.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

riddick, no, you are misquoting the article on the CIA.

It isn’t the case that the CIA is saying that ‘no-one in Benghazi asked for help’. They are saying that no-one asked the CIA for help. That’s completely different.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Where do I “misquote” the CIA? Benghazi is on record asking for CIA assistance. ON TAPE.

Did you hear Petraeus today or on any other date say clearly that he was told to stand down and not send help? If so, can you provide the link.

There is nothing “misquoted” by me above. That WaPo “CIA timeline” clearly stated that no one on Benghazi asked for help. Which we know now is a lie. So, why was it that Petraeus ignored the request when he now says “he knew right away this was a terrorist attack”, that was HIS EMPLOYEES under attack and dying due to his INACTION. Trying to save people in the consulate.

There is nothing to “suspect” here. You keep throwing the word around (suspect) and yet so far nothing that came out of CIA and Petraeus’ mouth resembles truth. He is a lying sack of crap, same as people he works for. Covering his azz and theirs is not honorable in any way when HIS INACTION led to 4 murders that we know off and probably more that we don’t. And won’t at this point, I am willing to bet on that. Congress critters or not.

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Yes. Say, what happened to Commiehawk anyway?

ghostwalker1 on November 16, 2012 at 4:29 PM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Heh so much anger and hatred with this one. So much so that it is willing to turn a blind eye to this debacle. What a tool.

CW on November 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM

There is nothing “misquoted” by me above. That WaPo “CIA timeline” clearly stated that no one on Benghazi asked for help.

riddick on November 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Do you have a link to that? I can’t find it. WSJ has a “timeline” that looks pretty comprehensive but it doesn’t state that no one asked for help.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

riddick, I am replying to what YOU said, which was that “no one in Benghazi asked for help. ”

That’s what you wrote. I said that the CIA said that no-one asked THEM for help. The Benghazi CIA and Seals certainly asked for help but my suspicion is that they asked their line-of-authority, which I suspect was the WH or State Department or DoD.

[Furthermore, I said that you were misquoting the ARTICLE on the CIA, not the CIA.]

The CIA and Seals in the Benghazi annex were told to ‘stand down’ and not go to help the Consulate. Who told them this? I suggest it was their line-of-authority. And that wasn’t the CIA.

What I think is going on, with the unravelling of this story, which Obama is trying to contain, is that Obama is trying to pin the blame for HIS actions of refusing to acknowledge the Benghazi terrorist attack…on anything and everything. First, it was the video. That failed. Then, the CIA. Petraeus is fighing back, not for himself, but for the CIA.

You think differently and don’t seem to include Obama in this debacle. I do. I consider Obama the first and final cause in this whole scenario. He’ll blame anyone and everything except himself.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I think that Petraeus’ first talking points memo asserted that it was a terrorist attack, and the WH removed these facts from the memo they gave to Rice to publicize. Then, the WH moved in on Petraeus and told him that they need to reduce the image of it being a terrorist attack and IF he wants his job, he’ll suggest that it had a lot to do with the video. That was Petraeus’ basic error. He obliged the WH.

But then, the WH, having to answer the new emerging public information that help had been requested and refused, tried to pin that refusal on the CIA. That ended Petraeus’ going along with the WH, and he issued the memo that the CIA had NOT refused help. So Obama fired him.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Rings true to me.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You think differently and don’t seem to include Obama in this debacle. I do. I consider Obama the first and final cause in this whole scenario. He’ll blame anyone and everything except himself.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

What anyone “thinks” is not of concern.

Only what can be proven – which a lot of people around here seem to forget. What did Obama know? Was Obama even awake for all this? Was he on the Golf Course or something? Was he watching it all unfold and belting out orders?

We don’t know.

The only thing we know for sure is that the organizations running underneath him are fairly fu$ked up. That can be blamed on Obama and I think is an impeachable offense – if we had anyone with spine on Capitol Hill to make that happen (which we don’t).

Beyond that – he could have made some seriously bad decisions here personally – but we really don’t know for sure yet. It could be just that he’s overdelegated a lot of sh!t.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Then, the WH moved in on Petraeus and told him that they need to reduce the image of it being a terrorist attack and IF he wants his job, he’ll suggest that it had a lot to do with the video. That was Petraeus’ basic error. He obliged the WH.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Maybe he’s so caught up in the culture of corruption that he didn’t give it a second thought when he saw his talking points removed. He gave the boss his assesment – he’s thinking he did his job. Boss wants to change history – who is he to say No?

It could be that this is just he way DP acted in this White House all along.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 4:51 PM

And the battle for truth is between Him and the CIA. He’s out to destroy the latter. And he’s a master at manipulation and lies.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Maybe out to destroy the military also?

the red herring of Susan Rice

As you said, the WH is using Rice to deflect scrutiny from their own culpability, notably in altering the intelligence report. As Roger Simon pointed out, legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Heh so much anger and hatred with this one. So much so that it is willing to turn a blind eye to this debacle. What a tool.

CW on November 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You just insulted all self respecting WORTHLESS tools world wide! (this loser would need a billion dollar upgrade just to achieve tooldom)

Katfish on November 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Honda, you first said that what anyone ‘thinks’ is not relevant, but then, you posted your own thoughts, ie, that Petraeus willingly went along with Obama, just because ‘his boss wanted to change history’.

However, I’ll stand by my own view that Petraeus was ordered by the WH to stress the video in his testimony on Set 14th, but then, when more facts began to come out, and the WH tried to put all the blame for not answering Benghazi appeals for help..on the CIA…well, Petraeus refused to allow that. He put out HIS memo that rebutted the WH claim..and Obama fired him. Obama is not a collaborator, not someone who works with others. It’s His way. Or no way.

petfrt, yes, I’d also agree that Obama is out to destroy the military. I think it’s well known that the military loathe Obama; Obama, as a pathological and very malicious narcissist, can’t allow them this freedom, and he’ll be out to destroy them. How many four star generals has he gotten rid of?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I keep going back to that Roger Simon piece:

A commenter – CatDaddyKSC – on Breitbart.com has an interesting theory:

Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.

The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance? Hmmm…

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Looking ugly, isn’t it.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

petefrt, yes, it’s ugly. Very ugly. The fact that Americans voted for such an amoral and unprincipled person is a symptom of how far the great USA has lost touch with its basic ideational infrastructure.

The fact that Obama has subjected, and I mean the term, almost the majority of Americans into dependents, people who depend on government funding for various or all aspects of their life, is a tragedy. And the fact that this same majority don’t understand that the ‘government’ has no money itself; it takes all its money from other people, from taxpayers. And from future taxpayers by borrowing, borrowing, borrowing…that’s another tragedy.

Now, the WH is suggesting that the Petraeus Talking Points memo was changed to ‘protect national security’. Huh? How?

Is it because to say that it was an Al Qaeda attack is more harmful to our security than, as the rewritten memo said, that it was due to the quick spontaneous anger of ‘extremists’? Hmm. Or is it that taking out Al Qaeda, which is to say, removing any hint that terrorism is a reality and instead, suggesting merely emotional extremism (anger at the video)…suits the Obama team’s self-identification of We Conquered Terrorism? I know which one I think is logically plausible.

Meanwhile, the Obama team is declaring that ALL departments associated with security OK’d the edited Talking Points memo. No, they didn’t; the CIA certainly didn’t approve these changes.

And, the Obama team is busy supporting Rice as a ‘victim’ of public anger, who simply read the points in the memo. Now wait a minute. IF all security departments; the CIA, the DoD, the State Department AND Obama knew that it was terrorism, then, how could they let Rice go out and present a false scenario?

Again, as I’ve said before, Obama is a master manipulator and pathological liar. He’ll slither out of this, as he slithered out of Fast and Furious. He’s very good at blaming YOU, the questioner, for daring to question Him. Or not submit to Him.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I can’t believe we are still focusing on Benghazi. When are you all gonna realize this is a LOSER for Republicans?
Sure the Administration downplayed the role of terrorists in the attack in the middle of a presidential election! The public already knows sthat…AND DOES NOT CARE. Obama is enjoying the highest favorability and his national security numbers are in the 70s. This investigation isn’t going to affect Obama at all. If it comes to it, some low level person in the administration will be blamed for changing the talking points and that will be it.
Insisting on trying to embarass the president is going to be seen as SORE LOSING by the general public.
We should instead be talking about how is the best way the Republican house should deal with the fiscal cliff and other important issues facing this country.
We should also be having a discussion about the direction of the Republican Party. The RINOs have lost 2 Elections in a row with their moderate candidates. They have lost Senate seats with their moderate Senators. It’s time for the GOP Estbalishment to take a back seat and pass the baton to true conservative leaders like Sarah Palin who has always been right on the money in so many issues.

RINOs and foxnews want us to keep talking about Benghazi and how to win latinos because they don’t want to face a simple truth: Moderate Republicans are LOSERS. The Obama team knew they would win by turning out their base (they gave up on independents when they chose to be pro gay). Republicans won in 2010 by turning out their base. That’s how Elections are won in a very divided America, not by being moderate.
It’s time for Conservatives to take over the Repooublican Party and remove the RINOs who are still in position of power…

This whole Benghazi non sense is a distraction that won’t hurt Obama at all (it did not during the Election and will certainly not going forward). Let’s clean house within teh Republican Party instead…Let us silence the RINOs that are killing the Party.

jules on November 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Roger Simon sees one likely fallout of Benghazi:

What may emerge [from the Benghazi investigation] is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.

All the time thinking they loved this country so much that they should turn it on its head and transform it into the antithesis of itself.

We can only hope that their corruption, hubris and thuggery collapses soon under its own weight, as it appears the GOP has neither the political courage nor moral fiber to stop them.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

petefrt – but, government by cabal is what we already have!!

It’s not going to emerge from the Benghazi investigation. It already exists and is both the cause of the Benghazi massacre and the source of its cover-up.

jules, our concern over Benghazi has nothing to do with any political party but with the integrity and ideational principles of the USA. A massacre, caused by our very own government’s refusal to secure its ambassador, and refusal to assist a consulate under attack, is a violation of our integrity as a people.

Because Obama The Corrupt is going to slither out of it, as he has done with EVERY concern around him, doesn’t mean that such an investigation should not be done. It MUST be done and be on record.

I fully agree with you about your concerns about the GOP – but this is an entirely different issue from Benghazi. I agree with you about the GOP Establishment (who backed Romney). My own view is that the GOP should reject social issues (abortion, gay marriage) as absolutely outside of the duties and interests of a federal government. A federal government’s duties refer to the economy, fiscal, security of person and property, foreign relations and interstate infrastructure. Period.

Social issues are very important to a people and must never be within the hands of a government – unless you want a Taliban or totalitarian style nation. Instead, decisions about these belong to the people at the local/state level and by referendum. Never, ever, to a federal government. The GOP should insist on this.

The Democrats ran almost entirely on social issues. Their economy? Heh, they hid Obama’s economy and ran on Clinton’s economy.

But the Benghazi investigation is a vital one. Because we, the people, matter. Even if Obama doesn’t.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM

ETAB @ 6:19

We need to find out the truth to honor the four fallen Americans.
If this is too much to ask, then we are in a world of hurt.
Maybe BO will trade not falling off the cliff for the truth about this matter.
Also. You don’t get orders to Stand Down, unless you have been told to Stand Ready.
Did I hear the Reid won’t allow for a Special Committee?

Whiterock on November 16, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Sorry ETAB @ 6:19
My comments were addressings Jules @ 6:40 post

Whiterock on November 16, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Bombshell: 2+2=5

Few know about this story. Fewer care.

The Resolute Desk on November 16, 2012 at 11:05 PM

That’s what you wrote. I said that the CIA said that no-one asked THEM for help. The Benghazi CIA and Seals certainly asked for help but my suspicion is that they asked their line-of-authority, which I suspect was the WH or State Department or DoD.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Read this again. Slowly. And carefully. Then tell me where you got it wrong.

I can’t explain it to you in any simpler terms if you refuse to understand even what you post.

riddick on November 17, 2012 at 12:38 AM

ETAB is hitting on 12 cylinders tonight. Pedal to the metal. Keep it up.

Kenosha Kid on November 17, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Social issues are very important to a people and must never be within the hands of a government – unless you want a Taliban or totalitarian style nation. Instead, decisions about these belong to the people at the local/state level and by referendum. Never, ever, to a federal government. The GOP should insist on this.

The constitution already has provisions against abortion in the 5th and 14th amendments.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

We are already living in a totalitarian style society where innocent children are massacared by the millions with no protection under the law. Even if the constitution didn’t protect human life, state’s rights don’t trump human rights.

NeverLiberal on November 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM

The latest clarification:

Obama was not lying about telling the truth about the lie he now claims wasn’t vetted until the truth was known to not be a lie, so the original semi-lie will not be considered a total untruth until a new, coherent lie can be supplanted for the provisional truth that was superseded by the first temporary lie.

Updates as they come in…

profitsbeard on November 17, 2012 at 3:42 AM

The problem, NeverLiberal, is the definition of ‘life’. You and I may share the same definition, that it begins at conception, but this is not a universally accepted definition.

Neither you nor I are able to insist that our definition is the ‘natural’ or ‘legal’ one, and, vice versa, those who consider that life exists only ‘at birth’ or even, only ‘when wanted’ cannot make us, in our own lives, accept their definition. But this leaves the state in a dilemma.

The state CAN, nationally, establish a law that defines life and thus, that law must abide by the Constitution. It has, instead, chosen only to make abortions legal. This puts the definition of ‘what is life’ back into the hands of the people but, by extension validates the second definition of life. My point is only that such a definition must be decided by the people not by government.

That means, in the states, and by referendum. Note that no matter which definition one chooses, another person will reject it and choose the other definition.

ETAB on November 17, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Here’s a list of the lies they’ve told. My take.

kingsjester on November 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4