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

What will Obama do?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Great round-up. My prediction: Obama will have selective memory and go to his third debate response of terrorism. He’ll “forget” what he said about Susan Rice and the media won’t “remind” him. Anyone who does remind Obama about his conflicting statements will be labeled a “right-wing-nut-job-early-asylum-release” and promptly dismissed. Next. :-/

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

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

CNN is now asking who changed the talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice….

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

IMO the American people are smart enough to understand where the truth lies.

50.8 % of the electorate just voted for another four years of “leadership” from a celebrity sociopath who hates America and is hellbent on its destruction.

Let’s not overestimate the intelligence of the American people.

Right Mover on November 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Daily reminder: CNN exit polls showed that in 2008, Dear Leader set a new (for that time) American record with 70% of the high school dropout vote.

Last week, according to CNN, he did even better.

HS Dropout Vote For O’bamna 2012, by Blue State (CNN exit polls)

PA: 82%

CA: 80%

NV: 73%

While in Ohio, he got 67%, and in Florida he got 66%. Those are both slightly down from 2008.

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Breaking News: CNN viewers figure out what Fox viewers knew two months ago

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Wait! Romney won?!?!?!?!

Hahahaha!

BOMBSHELL!!!!!!

No.One.Cares.

What thin reeds you grasp to cover your bloated pallid downtrodden corpses.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Breaking News: CNN viewers figure out what Fox viewers knew two months ago

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I already had this convo with a “CNN viewer”. They are still intellectually superior because they took their time and waitied for facts to come out instead of just jumping to conclusions like us Fox viewers.

Can’t make this $#!t up.

CycloneCDB on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

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

Yes, where are they?

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Furthermore, Petraeus is an honorable military officer, he would not resign his post over an intel kerfluffle. Nobody asked him to resign or challenged him to resign. His resignation is purely based on getting caught with his pants down, a direct violation of his own personal honor code.

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it, and thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Trust me on this, Petraeus was “asked” to resign by Tom Donilon. He would have been fired had he refused.

As for Benghazi, I will post 15 points about it in a separate post. Then, you can try to defend the State Department.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

This whole debacle will be told how the corrupt media choose to tell it…

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Benghazi:

1. The State Department had to issue a waiver for the consulate in Benghazi because security failed to meet its own basic security standards and those set forth in Federal law.

2. The Benghazi consulate had been bombed twice in the 5 months leading up to 09.11.12.

3. Specific threats had been made against the ambassador, the consulate, and other assets in Benghazi.

4. Increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi had been made during the 6 months prior to the attack.

5. On 10 June 2012, an assassination attempt had been made on the British ambassador, which led to the entire mission being abandoned.

6. Diplomatic cables warned of security concerns in Benghazi and flatly said the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack.

7. The Red Cross had been attacked in May and al Qaeda had left threats there on the day of the attack mentioning the American consulate.

8. On 22 June 2012, Ambassador Stevens warned State that extremist groups were carrying out terrorists attacks, making threats against Western targets, and he believed that he was a target.

9. On 9 July 2012, Stevens requested at least 13 more security personnel.

10. On 21 July 2012, the private security contractor, Nordstrom, warned State to be on high alert for terrorist activity. State refused to renew Nordstrom’s contract on 5 Aug and replaced it with a Welsh group, Blue Mountain, which had little knowledge of the conditions in Libya and hired inexperienced locals for $4 an hour.

11. On 2 August 2012, Stevens sent an urgent cable to Clinton requesting a “protective detail bodyguard.”

12. On 16 August 2012, the consulate security team leaves while sending a message directly to Clinton of the dire security situation.

13. On 8 September 2012, Libyan officials in Benghazi warned both Ambassador Stevens and Secretary Clinton of a pending attack on the consulate.

14. 4 hours before he was killed, Stevens cabled Washington. He told Hillary’s office that there were at least 10 al Qaeda groups openly training in Benghazi and he/and the consulate were operating under extremis conditions.

15. It was the 11th anniversary of the original 9/11.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Daily reminder: CNN exit polls showed that in 2008, Dear Leader set a new (for that time) American record with 70% of the high school dropout vote.

Obowma our dear leader! Can you really gin up the finger energy to type that with any conviction for another 4 years?

He destroyed you and yours-TWICE! He demolished a war hero-who you quickly crapped all over-then a supposed captain of industry-who you are now crapping all over. He co-opted the industrial military complex and now all you can do is slip around in your Santorum.

So f-n good.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

What thin reeds you grasp to cover your bloated pallid downtrodden corpses.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Gloating is so you. I look forward to the day folks see you sputering and mumbling “wha…wha..what happened man? what happened?” as you look for the scraps that will become your existence.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I’m very interested to see where this goes. Petraeus needs to give up the goods and lay it all out there and the story needs to get out. 4 people are dead and concealing the secret doesn’t make them any deader, nor will it bring them back to life. But if there has been lying about what the mission of Benghazi was at the time, or what Ambassador Stevens was doing there, or about who perpetrated this attack and what we could’ve done about it–then that is information that we need to know.

ted c on November 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

No.One.Cares.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Katherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin care. They’re searching for a newer version of John Dean…..someone with truth to tell.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Daily reminder: CNN exit polls showed that in 2008, Dear Leader set a new (for that time) American record with 70% of the high school dropout vote.

Last week, according to CNN, he did even better.

HS Dropout Vote For O’bamna 2012, by Blue State (CNN exit polls)

PA: 82%

CA: 80%

NV: 73%

While in Ohio, he got 67%, and in Florida he got 66%. Those are both slightly down from 2008.

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Who needs a High School Diploma/GED when you can an Obamaphone?

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I already had this convo with a “CNN viewer”. They are still intellectually superior because they took their time and waitied for facts to come out instead of just jumping to conclusions like us Fox viewers.

Can’t make this $#!t up.

CycloneCDB on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Had that same conversation. Somehow swallowing the administration story hook, line, and sinker and not immediately recongnizing a lie when it is told but waiting until Wolf Blitzer is on the case, is the sign of a brainiac.

Gee if only I had a few more IQ points I could get how this could be.

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

IMO the American people are smart enough to understand where the truth lies.

Where have you been since Tuesday?

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

A

nd if he’s in on it too, we’ll have President Boehner.

Greyledge Gal on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

If it comes to resignations then we’ll end up with the type of deal that brought us G. Ford. Biden will resign first. The Dims will negotiate for a new V.P. and then Obama will resign. Are there any milk toast dim senators that will fit the bill?

chemman on November 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

If it comes to resignations then we’ll end up with the type of deal that brought us G. Ford. Biden will resign first. The Dims will negotiate for a new V.P. and then Obama will resign. Are there any milk toast dim senators that will fit the bill?

chemman on November 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Nothing will come of this. NOTHING. The good “folks” are in a stupor that they refuse to awake from and the MFLSM won’t do their jobs. We need a miracle to save this Country.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Evidently, the new marijuana laws are already in effect where Tommyhawk lives.

Pitiful.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Thanks for brilliantly proving my point.

A+++++

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 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

Except for the ‘Rough Men’ outside…providing security.

Solaratov on November 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Evidently, the new marijuana laws are already in effect where Tommyhawk lives.

Pitiful.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM

He has been an azzhole for a long time.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM

What will Obama do?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The real question is what Obama wont do. He wont hold another formal press conference for another 8 months, just like he didnt hold one for 8 months prior to this one. And since there is no push back from the media over his avoidance of access to the public, he will get away with not responding truthfully to any inquiries about this or any other scandal.

Cavalry on November 16, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I believe that breitbart is reporting that lawmakers were shown a video of Ambassador Stevens being dragged out of the consulate. They used the term “envoy” and I believe that to mean the ambassador.

ted c on November 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

T R E A S O N

ANYTHING less does not even come close to what little justice there is to be had for the PREVENTABLE MURDER of 4 Americans

(and no I aint holding my breath)

Katfish on November 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM

No.One.Cares.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Ty Woods’ father would like a word with you.

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

Intell InFo GoldMine

Results for #Petraeus
*********************

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Petraeus&src=hash

canopfor on November 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM

katablog, in your zeal to condemn Petraeus for an affair, which had nothing to do with Benghazi, you are ignoring the massacre at Benghazi and the reality of Islamic terrorism.

You are ignoring that the US knew almost instantly that this wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration but a terrorist attack.

You are ignoring the four dead Americans, and the cover up of this massacre by the WH and Obama declaring that it was ‘US fault’, ie, an American video. And, you are ignoring that the Libyan and Egyptian governments both sent warnings to the US prior to the attack that they had information that attacks were planned against the US embassies on Sept 11 – not due to a video which was never mentioned – but to the imprisonment of ‘the Blind Sheik’.

You are ignoring the June terror attack on this same consulate, and their many pre-Sept 11 requests for increased security which were denied.

You are ignoring that the CIA on the ground asked for help; that no help came. Why not? You are ignoring that Obama declared that he immediately ‘gave the order’ (according to him) to help the Consulate. But nothing was done. Why not? Did the military disobey this order to help their comrades? To whom did he give this order? No-one seems able to answer this rather vital question.

You are ignoring that the CIA issued a statement that, in contradiction to the WH narrative that they refused help, that they did NOT refuse to help. Who ordered ‘no help’?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

OT: WWL Radio in New Orleans reports that an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is on fire after an explosion; 4 injuries reported so far with 2 missing.

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I hope Petraeus has some body guards. His safety could be in jeopardy for telling the truth.

bopbottle on November 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I don’t care anymore what they called it and when. I want answers to who made the call to not send help to those dying in Bengazi.

Everything else is window dressing without that answer.

SteveInRTP on November 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

^^^THIS!^^^

+1000

Solaratov on November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Kent Conrad is out making sure the media knows that Susan Rice used the unclassified talking points signed off on by the entire intelligence community…she is totally blameless…

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Seems Petraeus’ plan is to contradict his comments that weren’t under oath with his comments under oath. That seems the best legal strategy for him. Difficult to prosecute him for his briefing comments. If he is in CYA mode this isn’t good for Obama. I can’t understand why they forced him out and gave him nothing to lose with the affair out and everything to gain by coming clean under oath.

Conan on November 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I don’t care anymore what they called it and when. I want answers to who made the call to not send help to those dying in Bengazi.

Everything else is window dressing without that answer.

SteveInRTP on November 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I think that is what we all want. I want heads to roll for these brave men.

We will never find out until the story has unraveled so this is a good first step. The confession for who told the operators to stand down won’t happen till the stupid Rice story falls apart and the fact that deception has taken place is established.

Conan on November 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Resist we much. Thanks for your excellent outline of the explosive situation over the past full year, in Benghazi and how the US utterly ignored this reality. Here’s another list, from a poster at PJ Media. It continues on from your list with warnings about the actual Sept 11th attacks.

* On the 4th of September, 2012, Egyptian deputy Interior Minister, General Sami Sidhom, received a letter warning that Sinai- and Gaza-based Global Jihad cells were planning attacks on the American and Israel embassies in Cairo. Copies of the letter were sent to all Egyptian security sector. Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the 8th of September, 2012, the Egyptian website, El Fagr, posted a statement by Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya wherein they threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground. Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the 9th of September, 2012, the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masry Al-Youm (Egypt Independent) reported that it had received a copy of the “top secret” letter, which stated that Egypt’s General Intelligence Service had notified the ministry’s national security body that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo. Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the 9th of September, 2012, the US State Department had credible information that American missions may be targeted in Cairo and Benghazi; yet, no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement are to be severely restricted. None of this credible and actionable information concerned the video.

* On the 10th of September, 2012, the day before the attack, Raymond Ibrahim at PJMedia.com reported (and I read it on the 10th) the threat and linked to the site. He also translated the post from El Fagr:

“The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the MORNING OF THE 11th of September, 2012, The Jerusalem Post reported that Egypt’s General Intelligence Service had warned that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo. Not a single word was made about the video.

The fact is that the Cairo protest was planned BEFORE the part of the video was aired on Egyptian television the Saturday before the protest. The true reason for the protest was NOT the video. It was ALWAYS the demand for the immediate release of the Blind Sheikh. The Egyptian government was aware of this. The Arabic press was aware of this. The Israeli government was aware of this. The Israeli press was aware of this. PJMedia.com was aware of this. I, certainly no member of the intelligence community, knew it before the protest. The US government knew or should have known it.”

Now, given all of this, plus the actual video evidence in actual time from Benghazi that shows NO demonstration but instead, a highly armed attack, and the actual voice communication from those attacked that they were under military siege (not a demonstration) – then, how could the Obama administration continue to claim that it was ‘all the fault of the US for making a video’? Hmmm?

Obama’s narrative about Himself is, ‘I am the Conqueror of Al Qaeda’. It’s a false narrative. He’s quite willing to throw four Americans into a massacre to retain this narrative, and destroy a highly decorate general, and, a key department of the US, the CIA.

Oh, and the Petraeus affair is piffle. For anyone to think that in the Washington bubble, such never occurs, is naive. And for the Obama administration to react with horror to this news about Petraeus, while remaining in adulation of Bill Clinton (and ignoring his many affairs), is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

And – Petraeus did NOT make Kelley an ‘honorary consul’ to S. Korea. He doesn’t have that power to make such an appointment. He’s head of the CIA, and doesn’t deal in trade agreements.

Again, what will Obama and his backroom gang do? He’s already taken The Fifth and refuses to answer questions. He’s already told the Press and questioners that they are ‘amoral’ and ‘outrageous’ for daring to question Rice..and by extension, Him. So, what will they do? And don’t think that they won’t slither out of this.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

And don’t think that they won’t slither out of this.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

let’s not let them.

gracie on November 16, 2012 at 11:31 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.

Can’t do that. Executive Privilege.

But don’t worry. Barry ordered ‘an investigation’. Just like Fast and Furious.

GarandFan on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Who denied the increased security assistance the Ambassador was requesting for months?

Isn’t that the crux of the disaster?

Failure to provide reasonable security?

And then the failure to provide emergency security after the attack began?

Who is responsible?

And why is Obama lying about every aspect of this case?

Who is he protecting… other than himself?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Kent Conrad is out making sure the media knows that Susan Rice used the unclassified talking points signed off on by the entire intelligence community…she is totally blameless…

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

She said that it was the “best intelligence at the time,” which was untrue, especially considering Leon Panetta said it was a terrorist attack the day earlier.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM
-
Indeed.
-
For today’s talking points we will hear “but there were 20 reports, 20 reports”, as if this validates anything.

diogenes on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Kent Conrad is out making sure the media knows that Susan Rice used the unclassified talking points signed off on by the entire intelligence community…she is totally blameless…

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

She said that it was the “best intelligence at the time,” which was untrue, especially considering Leon Panetta said it was a terrorist attack the day earlier.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

This sounded like a prepared statement to a gaggle of media…He repeated it twice word for word. It is nothing more than more obfuscation to cover Susan Rice. Although there are other reports that are totally opposite, it gives the corrupt media something to run with. Narrative control.

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Well, at least Petraeus can’t pull a Twinkies Defense…

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I think we are just wasting our time getting all excited about this stuff. 50.1% of this country don’t give a crap about any of this and the MSM don’t either. We are now a socialist country and the America we once knew and loved is gone.

steel guy on November 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Why is there an obnoxious Wolf Blitzer auto run video embedded in this thread? It’s extremely annoying.

Mr. Arrogant on November 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM

A dozen black House women defend Rice. Gender and race.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Unstinkingbelievable
The dems covering for rice

The lsm will push this through the weekend and the gop will be called out for politicization

We know the lsm MO

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

A dozen black House women defend Rice. Gender and race.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

good…and while we are at it ladies, we are going to hold u all to the same high standards we expect of every man and woman in public service. thanx for assembling. now get back to work.

gracie on November 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

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

Both wrong, he’s a f’n moron, a child of affirmative action, promoted by others all his life.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Where are the gop?

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Ty Woods’ father would like a word with you.

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

Who is he protecting… other than himself?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

IMO, Hillbilly, that’s who. Hillary and Billy Jeff probably have the Benghazi goods on Barky. If Hillary is thrown under the bus for her incompetence, Barky knows he’ll surely go with her and vice versa. It’s in both Hillary’s and Barky’s best interest to let the blame rest on the fall-guy/gal du jour– Virtually anyone else.

Slainte on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

so what. keep pushing….and by the way Dem isms….stop trying to hide behind yourselves. 4 dead guys wanna know why u didn’t show. hand over the President. he’s the guy with the goods.

gracie on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Its pathetic how the dems rally around a disgraced dem and the gop drop a disgraced gop at a drop of a hat

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM

This just keeps getting dumber and dumber. A terrorist group attacked over a movie? That’s what some at CIA thought initially? Come on, if this is true, the CIA is politicized.

BKeyser on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

The CIA has been thoroughly politicized for decades, part of that ‘Long March’ deal. The most recent best evidence was the 2007 NIE, which was a joke.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Were you raised a punk Troll, or did you accomplish this on your own?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The focus now in the media and in Congress on Rice, is a careful tactic by the WH to divert attention from the truth.

Ignore Rice. I’ll only make one comment that she’s unfit for high administrative office because she’s a submissive acolyte of Obama who refuses to think and analyze data she is given, but simply does blindly what she is told.

Back to reality.

The reality is, first, the situation: the terrorist attack on Benghazi that massacred four Americans, and that, despite their calls for help, none was sent.

Second, that warnings of such an attack were numerous both in past events (an attack in June) and specific warnings by Egypt and Libya. And, that the attack was viewed in real time in Washington and there was no evidence of any demonstration; instead, the evidence was of heavily armed terrorists.

Third, that the WH attempted to cover up the reality of terrorism by instantly publicizing the video, having Obama and Hillary Clinton make ‘heartfelt apologies’ in Pakistan (?!); having Rice tell the American public it was a video; having Obama proclaim to the UN that ‘insults can’t be tolerated against Islam’.

And, fourth, when questions arose about why asked for help was refused, the WH then tried to blame the CIA for refusing aid. Petraeus instantly jumped and sent out a memo that the CIA had not refused aid. That finished his career; Obama threw him under the bus – and an affair, long over, is a red herring.

Then, the WH is trying to claim that it IS the CIA as the root of all evil, by releasing a ‘talking points memo’ that ignores terrorism. And Petraeus counters that with – it’s a fake. His memo included terrorism.

Hmm. Sounds like Obama’s much vaunted birth certificate. Or, his hidden college transncripts.

Again, what will Obama do? He’s taken the Fifth, claiming he can’t talk because ‘it’s under investigation’. As some here have suggested, he’ll claim ‘Executive Privilege’ and try to shut down the inquiry. Very possible.

But, what’s he going to do with the CIA? He’s openly trashed them. He’s openly trashed the military. Are they going to allow this? After all, they’ve been around a lot longer than Obama.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Yep, you are all up to speed on the conquests and victories of Captain Kick-Azz, aren’t you? On things like Fast and Furious, Ben Gazi (whoever that is) or the Solyndra buddy greasing, not so much, huh?

How’s that Government teat taste – Obamaphone working good for you, Comrade?

Douchebag.

steel guy on November 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Steel, you are right that half the country doesn’t care. We have become complacent and soft; you don’t miss your water til the well runs dry. I will take cold comfort in the fact that not everyone is ready to roll over yet.

ghostwalker1 on November 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I know Gracie its just infuriating when 51% of folks will believe the lsm tripe and we can’t get thru to them

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

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

Bonus, the Twinkies will last longer than all your fancypants survival food.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM

A dozen black House women defend Rice. Gender and race.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

This is INSANE.
What was said is irrelavent.
That it was said by a black women is ?

Fine. Render what was said into writting. No sex or race in that.
Unless you have problems with ink and paper.

As long as these folks keep bringing race and sex, it will be an issue. These are NOT defenses against crtizisms.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy if this happened in any other administration other than Dear Leader’s?

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Trust me on this, Petraeus was “asked” to resign by Tom Donilon. He would have been fired had he refused.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Was it Donilon or Clapper? Anyway, I heard Petraeus wanted to stay on, but was told he’d be fired if he didn’t submit his resignation. For several weeks his relation with the WH had become increasingly contentious over his Benghazi timeline, which he seemed determined to release in spite of WH objections.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I think that is what we all want. I want heads to roll for these brave men.

We will never find out until the story has unraveled so this is a good first step. The confession for who told the operators to stand down won’t happen till the stupid Rice story falls apart and the fact that deception has taken place is established.

Conan on November 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Point taken and agreed to. I’m probably a little over-zealous in my wish to have heads roll NOW. However, I’m a realist enough to know that it’s going to take constant pounding to break through both the stonewalling and the dense heads of the majority of the electorate. Throw in a complicit MSM and it makes it even more imperative that we keep pounding away until we break through.

SteveInRTP on November 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Katherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin care. They’re searching for a newer version of John Dean…..someone with truth to tell.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Those gals are terrific. Smart and fearless.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Trust me on this, Petraeus was “asked” to resign by Tom Donilon. He would have been fired had he refused.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Was it Donilon or Clapper? Anyway, I heard Petraeus wanted to stay on, but was told he’d be fired if he didn’t submit his resignation. For several weeks his relation with the WH had become increasingly contentious over his Benghazi timeline, which he seemed determined to release in spite of WH objections.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

It was Dear Leader that made the ultimate decision…

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

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.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Yes, I do remember how upset I was about Pat Tillman.

You assume that I voted for Bush. I didn’t.

You assume that I am a Republican. I’m not.

You assume that I am a conservative. I’m not.

You assume that I supported the ground war in Afghanistan. I didn’t, but for different reasons than you, I’m certain.

You assume that I supported the Iraq war. I didn’t, but for different reasons than you, I’m certain.

This is completely about you teabaggers hating Obowma.

I’ve never been to a single Tea Party event, but just as the Progressive journalist, Jonathan Chait, wrote on behalf of the Progressive magazine, The New Republic, about Bush:

I Hate President Barack H Obama. There, I Said It.

And, for the same reasons that the Progressive Glenn Greenwald thinks Progs like you are disgusting hypocrites, I hate you, Obama Firsters:

The Despical, Hypocritical “Obama-Firsters”

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.

I’m 34 years old. Fearful and desperate? Not a chance, luv. Young, wealthy and just as radical as anyone on your side. I can outlast you.

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

I was two years old and growing up in London when Reagan was elected, but from what I see around me in the US, you idiots are going straight down the shithole that Labour brought the UK:

Bankrupt, uncompetitive, dependent adults, feral children, more income inequality, and horribly-run government programmes where doctors and boards can starve you to death against your wishes and those of your family.

I love it. I love the fact that you stupid, stupid, very stupid fvcks have voted for a party and a system that will not only ration you out of existence, but will ensure that your children never have a chance to break out of the class in which they are born because only the “Etonians” (or, in the case of the US, those that go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia) get to rule.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

It might have been Clapper, who is a total idiot, but I thought it was Donilon. He’s a really political operative, hatchet man. Nevertheless, Petraeus wanted to stay on as DCIA. He would have been fired had he not resigned.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I predicted ,here, that Petraues would NOT end up testifying live and I was WRONG. I thought the sex scandal would be a pretext to end the Benghazi scandal.

But I was right in a way because the issue’s shelf life has expired. Christmas is coming and the sex scandal has muddled and mixed up the public’s perception of what is going on.

Even the sex scandal is old by current standards.

I predict that Obama takes no damage from the hearing. If I’m wrong again then good.

BoxHead1 on November 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Why was he not put under oath?

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Top of drudge

Finally someone is asking the question……altered CIA notes

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM

:)

Well done, again.

America needs more of you, alas.

The destruction is fun to watch. They have no clue, none.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

+100 Thanks, guys!

The fact is that the Cairo protest was planned BEFORE the part of the video was aired on Egyptian television the Saturday before the protest. The true reason for the protest was NOT the video. It was ALWAYS the demand for the immediate release of the Blind Sheikh. The Egyptian government was aware of this. The Arabic press was aware of this. The Israeli government was aware of this. The Israeli press was aware of this. PJMedia.com was aware of this. I, certainly no member of the intelligence community, knew it before the protest. The US government knew or should have known it.”

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Rush is hammering it now.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Envision the next tactical move the Obama admin will have it’s surrogates in the media take, will be to say that Petraeus isn’t credible because he’s an adulterer.

BruthaMan on November 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Oops.

Finally someone is asking the question……altered CIA notes

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Rush is hammering it now.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Great petefrt :)

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Jarrett.

royzer on November 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM

No one asks the question “Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi, officially and unofficially, on the anniv. of 9/11?”

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Don´t hold your breath while waiting for the pseudo-communsit main stream media to support the thesis that Obama´s goons removed the line. They´ll just keep on lying, and lying, and lying, and lying and being the Obama propaganda arm. As for Rice, she´s the modern day “Manchurian Candidate” and will continue to spew her mindless babble forever.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Petraeus must have an awfully convenient lack of memory:

Fox News is told that the Petraeus briefing on Sept. 14 conflicted with that of the FBI and NCTC.

On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs. Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired — two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.

Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

Fox News is told that Petraeus was “absolute” in his description with few, if any, caveats. As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were “angry, disappointed and frustrated” that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/29/early-briefing-on-libya-strike-focused-on-al-qaeda-before-story-changed/#ixzz2CPQvr5Fd

So he’s a liar as well as a cheater.

Common Sense on November 16, 2012 at 12:53 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

They altered the CIA notes to make it a lie, then sent Susan Rice out to push the lie.

Who is ‘they’? Names?

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Rice is toast.

She was roasted by Obama.

The D women in congress “to criticize her is anti-women”.

Meh, to expect so little of her and Obama is the ultimate form of racism.

MKK died for nothing.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM

MLK

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

This is ticking like an IED with clusters now.

But the Dems got this to be a dud for the election.

These hearings couldn’t be held 30 days ago (which was a month after the incident)? I’ll never get that.

And Mitt let the lineman with lipstick and O stuff him at the line of scrimmage on this.

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

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

Just as we suspected. Great read, BTW.

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.

What may emerge 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.

The heavy stuff is beginning to hit the fan.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Try this very straightforward explanation:

The attack was orchestrated to occur on September 11.

There were plenty of warnings that AlQaeda-affiliated groups were planning a significant reprisal against the consulate. One only has to look at the communications and activity prior to that attack.

The Cairo embassy attack, where rioters planted the AlQaeda flag and shouted, “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama” is a clear indication that the terrorist organizers were rising up in retaliation for Osama’s death and Obama’s crowing about his “gutsy call.” It was an objective reminder that AlQaeda was not dead or “on the run” as Obama preferred to project as part of his re-election campaign.

The drone death of an AlQaeda number-two leader in Libya was also a motivation by the jihadists that the Islamists were not buying Obama’s spiking the football.

The video is merely an excuse as a catalyst for the “spontaneous” global uprisings of irate Muslims. It was an excuse to rally the perpetually peeved jihadis.

onlineanalyst on November 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Common Sense, you are missing the point. This isn’t about Petraeus, who is being used to cover up the WH and Obama. It’s about Obama and the WH and the refusal to acknowledge the reality of terrorism. AND, there’s a subtext of what was going on in Benghazi with the CIA.

I suspect that Petraeus’ Sept 14th testimony, which contradicted his own Sept 12th assessment that the attack was due to terrorism, was governed by threats from the WH – that unless he testified ‘their way’, he’d lose his job.

But, what turned Petraeus around, was when the WH began to blame the CIA for refusing aid to the Benghazi consulate. When that happened, Petraeus refused to go along with the WH, and posted a public memo that the CIA had NEVER refused aid to Benghazi. That ended his career; you don’t oppose Obama and get away with it. He was forced to resign.

Now, the questions to be answered are: Who changed Petraeus original memo? It was obviously the WH, for the WH HAD to know the original analysis that the attack was due to terrorism. And, Rice was sent out by and only by, the WH. She’s under Obama’s authority alone.

So, Obama and his team changed it. After all, Obama himself knew that it was due to terrorism. Therefore, why would he allow Rice to go out and say the opposite unless that’s exactly what he wanted her to say?

And more questions include: Why did the WH refuse to send aid? And why did they ignore the previous warnings about the area being unsafe?

As for Obama and his gang, they’ll come up with yet another red herring diversion. They are Masters at Slithering.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM

He destroyed you and yours-TWICE! He demolished a war hero-who you quickly crapped all over-then a supposed captain of industry-who you are now crapping all over. He co-opted the industrial military complex and now all you can do is slip around in your Santorum.

So f-n good.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

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

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

So while all are chasing the red herring that is patreaus, tell me who would be responsible to allow military defenses to cross international borders?
Hmmm, president o-destractus perhaps?
CBA anyone?

askwhatif on November 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

katablog, in your zeal to condemn Petraeus for an affair, which had nothing to do with Benghazi, you are ignoring the massacre at Benghazi and the reality of Islamic terrorism.

You are ignoring that the US knew almost instantly that this wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration but a terrorist attack.

You are ignoring the four dead Americans, and the cover up of this massacre by the WH and Obama declaring that it was ‘US fault’, ie, an American video. And, you are ignoring that the Libyan and Egyptian governments both sent warnings to the US prior to the attack that they had information that attacks were planned against the US embassies on Sept 11 – not due to a video which was never mentioned – but to the imprisonment of ‘the Blind Sheik’.

You are ignoring the June terror attack on this same consulate, and their many pre-Sept 11 requests for increased security which were denied.

You are ignoring that the CIA on the ground asked for help; that no help came. Why not? You are ignoring that Obama declared that he immediately ‘gave the order’ (according to him) to help the Consulate. But nothing was done. Why not? Did the military disobey this order to help their comrades? To whom did he give this order? No-one seems able to answer this rather vital question.

You are ignoring that the CIA issued a statement that, in contradiction to the WH narrative that they refused help, that they did NOT refuse to help. Who ordered ‘no help’?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

One scenario that makes sense

Obama had a covert operation for a kidnap exchange
Stevens for Abdel Rahman
Obama comes out a hero. – Ben Laden Ii and he gives his Muslim friends a favor

Something goes terribly wrong
Stevens dies of smoke inhalation

This explains
Lack of security
Film coverup gives the appearance of coverup only being about ” Al Qaeda not on their heels”
stand down by nearby annex
No outside help sent
Other 30 at the embassey silenced
Obama off to los vegas – away from it all
Petraous scandal and possibly threatened
Only small group in the know Obama, Jarrett, Holder, Hillary, Panetta, Axelrod, Petraeous

Far fetched but look at motives
Carnney, Rice, etc clueless

audiotom on November 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

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

To all those “conservatives” who stayed at home because you weren’t sufficiently motivated (four dead men???) to vote for Romney and allow this POS to be re-elected, please give yourself a hard punch in the throat for me.

Thanks.

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM

He destroyed you and yours-TWICE! He demolished a war hero-who you quickly crapped all over-then a supposed captain of industry-who you are now crapping all over. He co-opted the industrial military complex and now all you can do is slip around in your Santorum.

So f-n good.

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Only a liberal would find joy in the ongoing coverup of the violent death of an ambassador, two Seals and a worker.

What is WRONG with you people? Is there a birth defect or something that aligns you with corruption and stupidity? I’d really like to understand.

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4