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

Susan Rice is toast

J_Crater on November 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM

This could get really interesting really quickly…

Of course, if it does, we’ll never BISHOP hear about it.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM

BOOM goes the dynamite!

Sekhmet on November 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM

A month too late. f’em all

Bensonofben on November 16, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Three Bishops in this thread? Time for a schism!

Sekhmet on November 16, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Stop the War on Women and promote Susan Rice. Racists!

philw1776 on November 16, 2012 at 8:55 AM

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.

Oh my! If true.

And if true, it exposes Susan Rice for the lying partisan whore she is. She should have been less specific about where she got her fable.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Ed – Typo alert – Bobmshell?

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Doesn’t matter. Obama has been installed for our more years. Game over.

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

In English this time….How about “Four More Years”.

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

Yes, but also expect immediate ignoring of those demands.

behiker on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Bensonofben on November 16, 2012 at 8:53 AM

I was happy about this till I saw your comment. You’re right. It should’ve been enough that no thinking person would consider re-electing the administration responsible for this.

All I can hope is it’ll be more than Rice who gets toasted.

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Kick this administration in the a$$

As well as the lsm….is anyone else on cnn talking about this bombshell

Methinks not

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Doesn’t matter. Obama has been installed for our more years. Game over.

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Timing is everything….well and that 51 percent of voters wanted their freebies at ANY cost.

CW on November 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Please, General. The families of 4 murdered Americans are looking toward you to speak the truth and shame the Devil.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Ollie North fell on his sword for Reagan. I just don’t see Petraeus protecting Obama.

percysunshine on November 16, 2012 at 8:59 AM

There can be only one, and you aren’t it.

First.

Start talking, Bark, you Dog Eating traitor, I want to know it all.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Doesn’t matter. Obama has been installed for our more years. Game over.

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

But if it becomes clear he was installed for four more years by getting his tame press to sit on stories like this, he will find it is a four years not worth having.

Sekhmet on November 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Behiker no doubt this administration will cry outrage

Time to go after him…..he asked for it

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Most of you folks probably weren’t alive or aware of Watergate when it was unfolding.

All the Democratic complaints about the Republicans pursuing the truth about Benghazi?

Exactly mirror the Republican complaints about Democratic partisanship at the time.

Bravo for Life’s little ironies.

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Remember folks, he just got caught cheating, so his testimony will mean zero unless he has papers to back it up. POS should have said something before the election, instead of lying about the video to the Congress.So he has no loyalty to his wife OR his country. Seeing the Dems bring up WMD yesterday was typical shameful partisan misdirection.

Schwalbe Me-262 on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

No Rice-a-Roni for State.

Drill and Fill on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

he will find it is a four years not worth having.

Sekhmet on November 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

With our press…I am not so sure. Hope you’re right.

CW on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Again, Petraeus should have resigned in protest long ago. Now this is all for nothing. He’s disgraced, Obama is re-elected, Susan who(?) goes under the bus, and then what? He’s a failure.

Sgt_H on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

On a related topic….

Am I the only one irked that Hillary Clinton isn’t finding the time to talk to the Congress until sometime in December? That extends this whole thing out another month at least. The families of those slain by Muslim animals deserve better.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Doesn’t matter. Obama has been installed for our more years. Game over.

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Yeah, so was Nixon in 1972 in a 49-state landslide. A lot of good that did him when the Watergate scandal blew up.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Bob M. Shell

is the Deepthroat…

percysunshine on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

BobMshell?

New nickname for the Mooch perhaps?

8thAirForce on November 16, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Yeah, so was Nixon in 1972 in a 49-state landslide. A lot of good that did him when the Watergate scandal blew up.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Difference is that the Liberal Media will go after a Republican President, but cover for a Democrat one.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 9:05 AM

All the Democratic complaints about the Republicans pursuing the truth about Benghazi?

Exactly mirror the Republican complaints about Democratic partisanship at the time.

Bravo for Life’s little ironies.

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Not true! Nobody died because of Watergate. Nixon was unaware of the actual crime.

In the Benghazi massacre, the President was involved from the beginning. That alone puts the Democrat complaints into a different context. They are abetting a criminal and covering up a crime.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Pffft!
“Catch my golf cart if you can!”-from someone’s comment yesterday
The Praetorian press will stop this before it even reaches the first hole. And yes Rice will be a slight bump on the roll over, but its a presidential golf cart for cryeye. You expect’n a dent?
And as far as that goes, where’s Holder? “Hey, you pick on Susan, you gotta go thru me!!”
Its not just the press now. You’ve got to go thru the People’s Republic of America.

onomo on November 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

No bombshell. This is CYA. Twenty CIA reports saying it was the video … disproved over time. B.S. The corrupt media will be able to put this to bed without working up a sweat.

Once the people investigating and reporting on this use the term talking points – a euphemism for propaganda – as if that’s a legitimate term you realize the case is unlikely to be made.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM

1 we have to discover whether this story is true or JAR (just another rumor).
2 If true then Petraeus will have to explain the apparent condractions between his two Benghazi testimonies.
3 If true , and if the apparent contradictions are resolved, how credible is the testimony of an already marginalized and disgraced general?

I’m bringing up these questions because you can be sure these are some of the arguments that the embattled White House and State Department will bring up in its own defense of Susan Rice and of its Libya actions (or non actions) in general.

MaiDee on November 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

BobMshell? New nickname for the Mooch perhaps?

8thAirForce on November 16, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Would be “BlobMshell”.

Archivarix on November 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Difference is that the Liberal Media will go after a Republican President, but cover for a Democrat one.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Maybe. We’ll see how far the media is willing to go. The key difference here as many have already noted is that Watergate didn’t involve anyone dying.

Another possible key difference is the President’s own party. In 1974, Nixon resigned when it became clear the Republicans weren’t going to circle the wagons for him. It’s gonna take a very brave Democrat or two to break ranks this go-around even if there’s irrefutable evidence that Obama engaged in a coverup.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Maybe Hillary should just stay in Australia and drink more wine.

Electrongod on November 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Yepper sentinel

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

A month too late. f’em all
Bensonofben on November 16, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Wonder if Romney is rethinking his prevent defense strategy in the third debate? He gave Obama a pass on Benghazi. Many of us were furious. He deserved to lose.

Yeah, so was Nixon in 1972 in a 49-state landslide. A lot of good that did him when the Watergate scandal blew up.
Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

One letter (R) is not like the other (D).

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

This administration doesn’t talk about anything they don’t want to talk about. They’ll say they aren’t going to discuss this until all the facts are in. Or they’re waiting for the full investigation to be completed. Or they’ll claim executive privilege. They’re the dodgiest and shadiest bunch of characters I’ve ever seen. Thank you, General, for your service and your honest testimony.

scalleywag on November 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Most of you folks probably weren’t alive or aware of Watergate when it was unfolding.

I was alive but to be honest my attention was focused more on Evil Knievel and plastic army men.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching this happen in the Situation Room, in real time. And, then, he went to bed.

Chilling.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Blitzer-Starr don’t make it clear that the video meme had been disproved in Petraeus’ mind well before Rice’s TV appearances.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Sorry for the typo. I was just having dinner with Bob M. Shell, and just got confused.

Seriously, I blame my new Apple keyboard. Not because it’s really its fault, but I did have my morning cup of coffee already, and I usually have that excuse handy otherwise.

Ed Morrissey on November 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Oh yeah executive privilege scalley

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Does not matter . The electorate has spoken and chosen slavery and servitude . We can ignore four dead Americans as easily as we ignore our staggering national debt . President Superfly will go on The View and assure us that all is well and that more taxes will resolve all issues and will heal our planet . It is the Age of Obama and we deserve what we get .

DeweyWins on November 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I’m bringing up these questions because you can be sure these are some of the arguments that the embattled White House and State Department will bring up in its own defense of Susan Rice and of its Libya actions (or non actions) in general.

MaiDee on November 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

This isn’t about Petraeus. The fact of the matter is that the rat-eared wonder’s (REW) own statements are in contradiction with each other. In the Rose Garden on 9/12 it was a spontaneous attack based on a video. Hillary Clinton and the REW spent $19K on ads appealing to Muslim animals to stand down. The REW went to the UN and attacked the same video.

Then in the second debate the REW made the claim that he said it was terrorism from the outset.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching this happen in the Situation Room, in real time. And, then, he went to bed.

Chilling.

Was this ever disproved?

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 9:14 AM

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Not to my knowledge, ma’am.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Sorry for the typo. I was just having dinner with Bob M. Shell, and just got confused.

Seriously, I blame my new Apple keyboard. Not because it’s really its fault, but I did have my morning cup of coffee already, and I usually have that excuse handy otherwise.

Ed Morrissey on November 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Ed, I am disappointed in you. When something goes wrong, you always blame it on Bush.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

But if it becomes clear he was installed for four more years by getting his tame press to sit on stories like this, he will find it is a four years not worth having.

Sekhmet on November 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

What do you mean ‘becomes’?

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Wolf in full disbelief the Obamaniacs that they would lie. He is such a fool.

Tater Salad on November 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Thank you for making this clear! It is infuriating that this contradiction by our fearless reader has gone down the memory hole.

esr1951 on November 16, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The CIA was supposed to take the fall for misleading, deceptive, and dishonest WH post 9/11/2012 talking points. Apparently Petraeus has decided not to stay under the bus.

Maybe he got tired of being threatened and blackmailed by the Chicago Gang. Maybe he thinks he was misled and double-crossed about being able to keep his job despite the scandal. Maybe he decided either his pension is safe or, if not, he can make a lot of money giving interviews, making speeches, and writing books.

farsighted on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Great, everyone on HotAir will be upset and Fox will run many stories about this…and then??

Las Vegas baby…and if Obama was complicit, than what? You think the NYT is going to badger him, go into the same corner as Fox?

The more liable, the more directly he is involved (Obama), the more the MSM will dig in and defend him…just like Clinton, just like any other politician they back, they will defend him to the end.

right2bright on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Nixon was not watching the Watergate burglary unfold in real time.

DaveDief on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Ed, I am disappointed in you. When something goes wrong, you always blame it on Bush.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

No Doughboy, Blaming an evil corporation who makes all their products in China is a perfectly acceptable surrogate for GWB!

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

this might cost Obama the election.

williampeck1958 on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

cynicism is self-defeating. let’s keep this alive. keep pushing. make this administration’s life on earth a living hell and make bo wish he had not been re-elected.

gracie on November 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Oops. What I meant to say was:

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I love you, man.

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The more liable, the more directly he is involved (Obama), the more the MSM will dig in and defend him…just like Clinton, just like any other politician they back, they will defend him to the end.

right2bright on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

You pretty much sum it up right there.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

I’ll believe it when I see it…

Khun Joe on November 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

All I can hope is it’ll be more than Rice who gets toasted.

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Rice is small potatoes in this. She was a pawn, albeit a willing pawn probably. I want to know who gave her her talking points, who gave her her intelligence briefing (such as it was), who selected her to speak for the administration on this, and why wasn’t someone with organizational responsibility chosen instead.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

First.

Start talking, Bark, you Dog Eating traitor, I want to know it all.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

In the old real world the “folks” would be screaming for answers. In the new real world the “folks” are wondering if Ben Gazzy will give them some more free sh!t. Sad.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

From Breitbart:

Other than Petraeus’s upcoming testimony being “different than what he initially said,” Starr’s source also reported that Petraeus will tell Congress that at first there were at least 20 different intelligence reports floating around that said the video was responsible for the attack, and that over time, those reports were “slowly disproved.

Obama knew full well, from the start, that Bengazi was no video inspired uprising, yet he still presented his misleading response to the American people, to maintain his pre election foreign policy false narrative that Al Qaeda was scrambled and on the run on Obama’s watch. But Obama also knew that the initial intelligence was so vague that he could get away with his misleading narrative with sufficient plausible deniability when the truth finally came out, after the election.

I have always maintained that Obama is no idiot, but he relies heavily on the idiocy of his supporters to get away with what he does, which is basically lie with virtual impunity. And the media could care less, because they support him unconditionally.

Cavalry on November 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

political witch hunt, right libs?

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Liberal / Democrat voters don’t care. As long as their people are in control and the government checks keep coming – the don’t care that government is lying and corrupt.

This administration is running like an organized crime group – and the media and the dem voters just do’nt care.

LilyBart on November 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

What do you mean ‘becomes’?

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Exactly! It is not exactly a “cowinky dink” that it is only after the election we are finding out about the real unemployment numbers, the real number of jobless claims being filed, or the real number of people living in poverty.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

Bwahahahahhhaaaa!

That there’s funny.

BacaDog on November 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

You know Obama and his nasty team of thugs have already cooked up some “super secret, this was done to keep America safe” excuse for why there was this “planned confusion”. It was all so sensitive that NO ONE knew about it. Obama will never admit that he’s a rank amateur that got four Americans killed.

BettyRuth on November 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I’m stocking up on Twinkies and heading down to the bomb shelter

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Blitzer-Starr don’t make it clear that the video meme had been disproved in Petraeus’ mind well before Rice’s TV appearances.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

If we disregard Rice for a moment, Obama still has to account for what he said on the View, Letterman, and to the U.N. He was still singing that song. He doesn’t get updates? Maybe they were in the daily intell briefings he skipped….which creates another point of vulnerability.:)

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Fox News reports that Gen’l Petraeus had concluded that the attack in Benghazi, Libya, was terrorism [likely a regional al-Qaeda affiliate and Ansar al-Sharia] within the first 24 hours.

He will also be bringing the original CIA talking points with him, and will testify that he has no idea where Rice got hers, nor that she was going to make the rounds of the talk shows on the 16th.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus was expected to tell lawmakers in a pair of closed-door hearings Friday morning that he believed the Libya attack was terrorism within the first 24 hours and suspected a regional Al Qaeda affiliate and the militant Ansar al-Sharia were behind it, a source close to Petraeus told Fox News.

Petraeus arrived to meet with House lawmakers early Friday morning. His account would be sure to raise more questions from lawmakers, considering the conflicting narratives that have emerged from the intelligence community and other agencies about the attack. Petraeus himself gave a briefing three days after the attack, according to sources, in which he described it as a protest over an anti-Islam film that spun out of control.

It was similar to the account given on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16 by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice — and Rice’s defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.

Yet Petraeus, Fox News was told, on Friday was planning to bring with him the original “talking points” prepared by the CIA.

The source said Petraeus “has no idea what was provided” to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.

“He had no idea she was going on talk shows” until the White House announced it one or two days before.

. . . .

No indication in the story how he will address his prior statements to Congressional members early on.

Was the video demonstration “cover-up story” prompted by the Administration trying, as has been suggested, to cover up for the presence of terrorist prisoners being kept at the compound?

Was the CIA trying to cover up their activities re: identifying and gathering weapons caches from militant groups?

Trochilus on November 16, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Obama will continue to lie and the parasites that got him reelected don’t care as long as the get their free stuff. This once great Republic is no more.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I’m stocking up on Twinkies and heading down to the bomb shelter

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Some people are stocking 5.56 rounds and magazines, other people are stocking Twinkies.

Either way, we all end up in the bomb shelter.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

He hasn’t testified yet. He could be in the mood to do something noble after getting caught in the affair. He could be in the mood for revenge on an Administration that tried to blackmail him. We will see.

As for does Obama escape? He always seems to but with the 48% of this country that voted for Romney we are going to get even more determined to oppose this administration and that could help the trajectory of our slide into socialism.

I would remind people that F&F was only postponed till after the election. Issa needs to go through the courts to subpoena the documents and emails and that won’t last 4 years. They get to do this again sometime in Obama’s term.

Conan on November 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Odds have increased he won’t nominate Rice so that she won’t have to answer the questions this raises.

Bradky on November 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Billary are staying as far away from this as possible. They will wait until another crisis overshadows this one.

dddave on November 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The more liable, the more directly he is involved (Obama), the more the MSM will dig in and defend him…just like Clinton, just like any other politician they back, they will defend him to the end.

right2bright on November 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

But keep in mind that Clinton did eventually get busted for lying and obstructing justice. In the end he got off with only impeachment and remained in office, but it did have political ramifications. I seriously doubt Bush even comes close to beating Gore in 2000 if all that didn’t happen.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Rice is small potatoes in this. She was a pawn, albeit a willing pawn probably. I want to know who gave her her talking points, who gave her her intelligence briefing (such as it was), who selected her to speak for the administration on this, and why wasn’t someone with organizational responsibility chosen instead.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I post this question in all honesty-

Is there anybody who really believed (at any point) that the attack at Benghazi was related to a YouTube video nobody had ever seen? For that matter, did anybody really believe that the other embassy attacks by groups of Muslim animals was related to that video?

It was not a plausible story from the outset which is why Susan Rice’s lies are all the more reprehensible. She did it to be a “team player” but the reality is that as Ambassador to the UN she should have said that she didn’t have anything to add about the Benghazi attack because it isn’t part of her portfolio.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Schwalbe Me-262 on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

There has to be a communication trail. And it can’t be verbal.

antisocial on November 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

You know…

Last Tuesday we voted to instruct our electors at the Electoral College.

The Traitor-in-Chief hasn’t been reelected to anything yet

If he has been up to what I think he’s been up to it might just come out sufficiently to cause a Constitutional crisis that might affect the results…

Hey, look…

The nation is about to implode. I’ll grasp at any straw I can find.

turfmann on November 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Rice is small potatoes in this. She was a pawn, albeit a willing pawn probably. I want to know who gave her her talking points, who gave her her intelligence briefing (such as it was), who selected her to speak for the administration on this, and why wasn’t someone with organizational responsibility chosen instead.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I agree, she’s become a very purposeful distraction for the administration. They’ve already started trotting out the race card. “The GOP is bullying this sweet little African American woman, who’s come from nothing in South Carolina and is AWESOME at her job” As long as they can push that meme, their idiot voters will be so outraged by this ever present war on women, that Benghazi won’t matter.

BettyRuth on November 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

He belongs to a party that benefits from their own “failures”. He just got 18,000 hostess workers on the government teet.

MechanicalBill on November 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

No indication in the story how he will address his prior statements to Congressional members early on.

Trochilus on November 16, 2012 at 9:24 AM

In a perfect world, he would admit he was blackmailed by the WH using the sexual affair(and perhaps the promise of being able to keep him on as director) as leverage.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Woody Harrelson will never get that Twinkie now

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

That’s the sad result I see coming from the election. There are 51% of the people who take their entire story from Obama. With the MSM it is impenetrable.

I don’t know what other analogy to use but the civil rights movement.

If the minority gets upset enough at the unconstitutionality of something like Jim Crow South they can force change. The 1960’s were a time of upheaval and that could be coming again with an unjust government that has some electoral lock like the 1960’s South.

Conan on November 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Hey, look…

The nation is about to implode. I’ll grasp at any straw I can find.

turfmann on November 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I admire your motives!

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I have always maintained that Obama is no idiot, but he relies heavily on the idiocy of his supporters to get away with what he does, which is basically lie with virtual impunity. And the media could care less, because they support him unconditionally.

Cavalry on November 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Spot on.

I’ll add only one thing. Obama is no idiot, but he isn’t particularly bright either. He needed a lot of affirnative action to get where he is. And he has needed affirmative action from the MSM, in the form of ignoring and dismissing his mistakes and errors and praising his mediocrity, to stay there.

farsighted on November 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

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.

They’ll get right on that, too. After the wine tastings, the investigation, and the Fast & Furious perps are ferreted out and in jail.

In other words…

Midas on November 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Spot on right2bright

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Hillary may be a lot of things but one thing she is not and that’s stupid. Therefore, it is near certain that she knows the truth and that she also has been lying. That entire administration is a putrid cauldron of lies, deception and crookedness.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 9:31 AM

He belongs to a party that benefits from their own “failures”. He just got 18,000 hostess workers on the government teet.

MechanicalBill on November 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

18,000 striking Hostess workers. I hope they starve.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

20 intelligence reports? Who were they from? Were they from the CIA, State Dept.,Libyans, Libyan Government, Nato, Pentagon, NSA, foreign intelligence services, media? Were they verbal, written, rumor, speculation, electronic/photo interpretation? Was it 1 erroneous report followed by 19 more from the same people? A continuation of the meme if you will.
The American people are entitled to know the truth.

diogenes on November 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

What a nothingburger you wingnuts….

m.lester on Novermber 16, 2012

/

CW on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What’s President Biden take on this matter.

tygart on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Okay, but why did Petraeus himself say it was the video?

ninjapirate on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Other than Petraeus’s upcoming testimony being “different than what he initially said,” Starr’s source also reported that Petraeus will tell Congress that at first there were at least 20 different intelligence reports floating around that said the video was responsible for the attack, and that over time, those reports were “slowly disproved.“

Fine.
Produce ‘em with authorship attached.
Sounds like an e-mail chain with rumors.
My bet is it was one report referenced 19(at least) times.
That is not 20 intellegence reports.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Can’t a man just finish his waffle?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4