ABC: Petraeus called final Benghazi talking points “useless” the day before Rice’s full Ginsburg; Update: Transcript added

posted at 11:01 am on May 12, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

One of the mysteries in the Benghazi scandal has been the role of David Petraeus, who was then the Director of the CIA but was forced to resign in a personal scandal shortly thereafter.  While the White House and State Department tried to cobble together talking points to explain away the terrorist attack that took four American lives, what did Petraeus do?  According to new information reported for the first time by Jonathan Karl on ABC News’ This Week earlier this morning, Petraeus rejected the final version as “useless” — and then threw the issue to the White House:

We already knew that Petraeus was stunned by the revisions; now we know he rejected them personally.  “I would just as soon not use them, but it’s their [the White House] call.”  That would contradict the meme over the last few days that this was an intramural fight between State and CIA with the White House just serving as bystanders.  The CIA Director called the “demonstration” talking points useless the day before Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows, but the White House apparently disagreed.  They, evidently, found the false narrative very useful.

Earlier on today’s show, John McCain demanded a select committee to investigate the cover-up, and specifically called for Hillary Clinton to return to testify:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this morning described the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi controversy as a “cover up,” following exclusive reporting by ABC News that showed the State Department was involved in editing the CIA’s Benghazi talking points used in the days after the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Libya last year.

“I’d call it a cover-up,” McCain said this morning on “This Week.” “I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information which was obvious.” …

McCain also singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who he suggested would have been aware of the State Department’s emails requesting changes to the talking points.

“I think the secretary of state has played a role in this,” McCain said. “She had to have been in the loop some way, but we don’t know for sure.”

McCain said Clinton should return to Capitol Hill to testify again, calling for a Congressional select committee to further investigate the issue.

House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers told Fox News Sunday that she won’t be alone in offering testimony, because more whistleblowers are asking to step forward:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday he believes “more whistleblowers” will come forward with information on the deadly attack last year on diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

“I do think we are going to see more whistleblowers. I know certainly my committee has been contacted, I think others committees [have been contacted] as well,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” …

“I will tell you, we have had people come forward because of the testimony and say, we would also like to talk, we feel a little bit intimidated by this, but have information we think is valuable,” Rogers said.

Maybe a select committee should hear more from David Petraeus.  How did his deputy end up approving talking points he himself would have rejected? Who in the White House decided to run with them anyway?

Update: Here’s the transcript from the brief exchange, courtesy of ABC News:

JON KARL, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Well, you know, clearly, there’s a credibility question that the White House has to deal with because this directly contradicts what they have said about this.  But you, you know, Martha, mentioned in the interview with Senator Reed that the White House has had tried to have it both ways, both saying that they immediately called it an act of terror and saying they couldn’t do that in these talking points because they couldn’t prejudice the investigation.

You know, there’s problems on both sides with this.  But there is one very important point here, which is in all 12 revisions of these talking points originally drafted by the CIA, they begin by saying that the attack in Benghazi started as a spontaneous reaction to Cairo.  That was demonstrably false.

RADDATZ:  And took out all of the al Qaeda references–

KARL:  That was never true.  And then they went on and took out all of the al Qaeda references–

RADDATZ:  But they would say they didn’t know that at the time.

KARL:  Right.

RADDATZ:  About those. How about CIA Director David Petraeus?  How did he respond to these talking points?  And I know you have new information on that.

KARL:  Yeah, this is fascinating.  Because Mike Morrell, who was the deputy director, was the one that ultimately signed off on this one.  Petraeus finally saw the final version of the talking points.  This is the Saturday afternoon before Susan Rice’s appearances on the Sundayshows.  He looks at these and says they’re essentially useless.  And direct quote from his e-mail.  He says, I would just as soon not use them.  But it’s their call, meaning the White House’s call.

RADDATZ:  And they got the talking points out there.

Who overruled Petraeus on the talking points?  Who thought they knew better than the Director of the CIA, whose annex was overrun in the second attack, what happened on the ground?  I doubt very seriously that the overruling was done by Morrell or anyone at State except Hillary Clinton — and her personal briefing from Hicks during the attack should have put her in Petraeus’ camp on the uselessness of the talking points.


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

Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen from Delaware, and the Republican senator has claimed her citizenship was passed on to him at birth. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 backs him:

(Citizenship is awarded at birth to) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen.

The SC will not touch this with a 10 feet pole. It would have to nullify all which Obama decided.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen from Delaware, and the Republican senator has claimed her citizenship was passed on to him at birth. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 backs him:

(Citizenship is awarded at birth to) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen.

Sorry, forgot the link.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Which means, in addition to other things, two American birth parents.

This is simply NOT true, good one.

That’s it. I’ve stated my position on this. Many disagree with me. Fine. It’s all moot, anyhow, since we are no longer bound by anything in our Constitution.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 2:09 PM

This is just opinion, which is fine, but it’s NOT true. Good one, the sooner you get over this, the better.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Sorry, forgot the link.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Don’t know why some folks are arguing about this.

VegasRick on May 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM

A dear departed special ops friend of mine used to tell me how the clintons hated the military….there was no love lost between them and those that served during their reign of terror…nothing has changed with the current admin….fubar…..

crosshugger on May 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Don’t know why some folks are arguing about this.

VegasRick on May 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Don’t know either.

1. It’s one thing to see all the liberal media, who called the righties all sorts of names for even questioning O’s background/eligibility, including “racists”, type each time “Cruz, Canadian born”; to see HAL make an incredible fool of himself, just on topic…

2. It’s highly disappointing to see some of the best on the other side fall for it, without carefully reading the law. Just the law. The SC will not touch it, for NO price. It would have to decide on Obama’s mother’s years lived in the US, bef. he was born. The law as it is now is all there is and Cruz is eligible.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:20 PM

This is just opinion, which is fine, but it’s NOT true.

Yes, it’s my opinion on the interpretation of natural born citizen. I have given this issue much thought and investigation and this is the position that I have come to.

Good one, the sooner you get over this, the better.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I hate to break it to you, but I will not get over this. As I said, we will just have to be in (serious) disagreement on this. That’s okay. We’ll have this debate in full if, and when, the issue becomes a real consideration. For now, Cruz isn’t talking about a Presidential run. When he does then we can duke it out. I’ll still respect you, regardless :)

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 2:22 PM

The law as it is now is all there is and Cruz is eligible.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Yep. And I think the “birther” movement coming from the other side will be hilarious.

VegasRick on May 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Anyway instead of spending time trying to find the terrorists who killed our ambassador, our media and agenda driven GOP frauds are wasting everyones money arguing about talking points. Shame.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

LMAO. So, now the media and political parties are supposed hunt down the terrorists instead of the branch of the government charged with doing so and which happens to be run by a Chief Executive names Barack Obama?

Funny that Barry didn’t get around to putting out photos of the terrorists you think the Media and the Republican party need to hunt down until a few days prior to the committee meeting Wednesday.

Dusty on May 12, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I hold Petraeus personally responsible for this crapola getting out of hand.

He was guilty of dereliction of duty by washing his hands of his agency’s talking points and letting Obama LIE to the world for weeks on end. He let his agency’s name be used as a cover for LIES, LIES, and more LIES.

Sad to say, I believe he betrayed the trust Americans rely on for the Director of the CIA.

And Romney and his advisors blew it — BIG TIME.

At the debate Obama used the excuse of his generic mention of terror in his next day Rose Garden speech (with the coordination of Crowley) but Romney should have IMMEDIATELY said, “Mr. President, you can’t have it both ways. If you thought it was “terror” the next day, why did you send your spokesperson out the next week and thereafter to say it was only the video and call Libya’s president a liar?”

fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I’ll still respect you, regardless :)

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Same here, but you are wrong, my friend. I hope he runs. The left going nuts over this makes me incredibly schadenfreudig. I live for it.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Anyway instead of spending time trying to find the terrorists who killed our ambassador, our media and agenda driven GOP frauds are wasting everyones money arguing about talking points. Shame.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

How come Obama and his Libyan friends haven’t found them?

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM

fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Excellent points! +1

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:34 PM

At the debate Obama used the excuse of his generic mention of terror in his next day Rose Garden speech (with the coordination of Crowley) but Romney should have IMMEDIATELY said, “Mr. President, you can’t have it both ways. If you thought it was “terror” the next day, why did you send your spokesperson out the next week and thereafter to say it was only the video and call Libya’s president a liar?”
fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM

THAT is exactly what I thought when it happened during the debate. Romney was trained by his handlers to debate a gentleman,
he was not prepared for a down and dirty feces-fling fest with a a Chicago thug.

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I hold Petraeus personally responsible for this crapola getting out of hand.

Sad to say, I believe he betrayed the trust Americans rely on for the Director of the CIA.

fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM

In an Administration so rife with crooks, creeps, weasels, liars, fools, hypocrites, CYA pros, scumbags and complete incompetents surely their is at least one turncoat against Obama, Hillary and the crew who will spill the festering beans.

profitsbeard on May 12, 2013 at 2:38 PM

The SC will not touch this with a 10 feet pole. It would have to nullify all which Obama decided.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Google “Political Question Doctrine”. SCOTUS wants no part in such things, nor should they…

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM

How come Obama and his Libyan friends haven’t found them?

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Hussein is waiting for instructions from OJ on how to find killers of those you kill yourself. Why else do you think Hussein is golfing so much ?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Google “Political Question Doctrine”. SCOTUS wants no part in such things, nor should they…

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Okay. My final, final word on this:

This is not a political question, it’s a question of the definition of first-level Constitutional language. There are only two venues for resolving such issues – in the SCOTUS or by Constitutional amendment. Neither the Executive branch nor Congress have the power to determine first-level Constitutional definitions. The times that the Constitution wants Congress to make definitions for first-level terms it specifically delegates Congress that power and responsibility to do so, as with Art I, Sec8:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

Outside of such explicit delegations the appropriate manners of defining/interpreting such lie where I stated. These first-level terms were understood at the time of the writing (just as the word “year” was understood by all to be the Christian year – not the Jewish year and certainly not the barbaric, backward islamic lunar year, which would allow younger people than intended since the islamic year is 11 days longer). The SCOTUS is the body responsible for elucidating these first-level Constitutional terms while the amendment process can be used to merely explain it or can also be used to redefine a term (as is necessary, or favored, at times).

It’s a shame that none of our courts had the brains or guts to take Barky’s case and make a ruling one way or the other. This is an issue that should have been resolved (even if the SCOTUS made a mockery of it as it did with BarkyCare and the not-tax/tax federal mandate) years ago and should be established at this point. But, it wasn’t, so it still hangs.

To call this question political, though, is about as incorrect as one can get. There is nothing political about it. It is Constitutional. Period.

Okay. Now, I’m really done.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM

I was wondering when it would get bumped up to Top Picks.

Jeff Weimer on May 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM

How come Obama and his Libyan friends haven’t found them?
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM

We still have Libyan friends? Oh, you mean the terrorists.

txhsmom on May 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM

To call this question political, though, is about as incorrect as one can get. There is nothing political about it. It is Constitutional. Period.

Okay. Now, I’m really done.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM

High crimes and Misdemeanors. Political or Constitutional? Declaration of War. Political or Constitutional?

Do you really want SCOTUS having a say in these things? Because SCOTUS has demonstrated a history of not wanting to get involved in them. And on that point, I trust them.

Congress has to sign off on the slates of electors of anyone elected to POTUS. If they get it wrong, the people can punish them remedy the situation. That, combined with the inherently political nature of elections, makes this a clear cut case of a political question…

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM

The House is given the sole power of impeachment and so the Constitution clearly delegates to Congress the power to decide what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”, especially as the language is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There is nothing unclear about this delegation of power. Just the “other” on its own should tell you that.

As to war, Congress is given the sole power to declare war. It is not to anyone else to tell Congress what they have or haven’t declared – though Barky thinks that he can tell the Senate when it’s in session or not, no matter what the Senate says about it.

My point clearly stands. If one doesn’t want the SCOTUS doing something in the area of first-level Constitutional language that was written as understood then a Constitutional amendment explicitly detailing it is the remedy. Otherwise, it sits with the SCOTUS, like it or not.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Anyway instead of spending time trying to find the terrorists who killed our ambassador, our media and agenda driven GOP frauds are wasting everyones money arguing about talking points. Shame.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Clearly the terrorists were hiding in Las Vegas.

EnglishRogue on May 12, 2013 at 3:32 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM

The House is given the sole power of impeachment and so the Constitution clearly delegates to Congress the power to decide what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”, especially as the language is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

No. The Constitution gives them the authority to impeach for high crimes and Misdemeanors. But by your logic, Bill Clinton would have standing to go to SCOTUS and argue that, on “Constitutional” grounds, Congress improperly defined HC&M, and that their impeachment was, therefore, invalid.

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Otherwise, it sits with the SCOTUS, like it or not.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM

And they will NOT touch it.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM

So , since it’s Mother’s Day,
is Planned Parenthood having a parking lot sale today ?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM

This thread has gotten really stale. Where’s HAL? He didn’t turn over with libfree? Or is Bayam in the barrel next?

Getting sloppy, trolls.

Jeff Weimer on May 12, 2013 at 4:03 PM

…back to ensconce its Lips… on Hot Air MEMBERS !

KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM

EWWWWW!!!
(backs away, slapping at crotch)

katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 4:11 PM

The House is given the sole power of impeachment and so the Constitution clearly delegates to Congress the power to decide what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”, especially as the language is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

[ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM]

FWIW, here’s a nice primer on the Meaning of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Dusty on May 12, 2013 at 4:19 PM

fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM
burrata on May 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I would have to watch the clip again but I saw Mitt Romney sandbagged by Candy Crowley. He could have done more but he would have had to be very aggressive. It also seemed that the Dem’s side was waiting for Candy’s foray and really ran with it. Of course, the media never really followed up.

The media corruption is the continued, and continuing, problem in this country.

As for our debates being between gentlemen, the only limits seem to be what the voters will swallow.

If the GOP did not have congress, all this would be under a rug somewhere.

IlikedAUH2O on May 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM

workingclass artist on May 12, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Nice recap. Sorry I disappeared for a while. It’s mother’s day, after all.

dogsoldier on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Saw this on the web today…..6 minutes of awesome palate cleansing!!

http://vimeo.com/66017973

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Bottom line:

A.) Obama admin sacrificed 4 Americans for political considerations due to an election 2 months away. It’s a fact that there should have been more security, that State and WH refused that security. It’s also a fact that there was a myriad of responses available once the event had begun. State and WH chose no response. This is a situation where you have to be deluded to the point of insanity in order to not see how every piece aligns perfectly to them wanting to downplay the event.

B.) This admin is so beyond incompetent, so unbelievably unable to take a situation (sacking of consulate, murdering of amb.) and identify it for what it is (ie: not a protest) that it has reached the level of national emergency. If people like HAL and so on wanna try and use that ‘mistakes were made’ sort of defense then really, it’s to the point that right minded folks need to call in the U.N. and ask for a provisional government to be setup to just manage day to day things like waking up in the morning.

preallocated on May 12, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Diana West: “Spontaneous protest, unplanned attack: That was Petraeus’ testimony as CIA director three days after U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya.

Within 24 hours of the attack, however, the White House and top officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies knew that no protest, spontaneous or other, had taken place. They knew the U.S. had been hit on the 9/11 anniversary by a planned attack by al-Qaida affiliates. Ruppersberger’s account, then, indicates Petraeus deceived the committee. When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy recently pointed out, such deception is a felony.

This same phony story — that “extreme groups” took advantage of a “spontaneous” protest over a YouTube video to mount an “unplanned” attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — would be repeated by the Obama White House for two weeks, climaxing in the president’s U.N. address on Sept. 25. There, President Obama cited the video six times and declared to the world body, dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (an Islamic bloc of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority): “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Blaming the YouTube video for the violence was, in effect, blaming free speech, which is also OIC policy. Additionally, it denied the reality of the planned jihad attack, which, by extension, denied that al-Qaida-style jihad terrorism still exists at the vanguard of expansionist Islam.

To date, the media haven’t asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn’t military help get to Battleground Benghazi? Without coming clean, President Obama has been re-elected, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice floated as the next secretary of state.

And Petraeus? On Nov. 12, Fox News reported that “congressional leaders,” believing Petraeus lied to them in September, had “already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week.” (Under oath or not, it is a crime to lie to federal officials.) We have heard no such tough talk since.”

And BTW – Diana West: “Even though it appears the former CIA director lied to the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 14, and may have lied again to the same committee on Nov. 16, he is starting to slip out of the inner ring of Benghazi cover-up suspects. We are losing sight of his official role in the deception as the media lens ossifies over a tawdry love triangle. For this, he must be thankful. Maybe to ensure the good fortune continues, Petraeus has hired Bob Barnett, the $975-per-hour Washington superlawyer to officials with issues and/or big book deals, to manage what reports call Petraeus’ “transition to civilian life.”

VorDaj on May 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I know a real scandal. Lying to the people in this country about WMDs to get support for a war that cost hundreds of billion of dollars and resulted in the deaths of thousands of US troops. More than being impeached, Bush and Chaney should be sitting in a prison cell right now for their lies.

antifederalist on May 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Do you want to try another card? You’ve long since exceeded the credibility limit on the Iraq Card.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 6:37 PM

All right, maybe this was covered, but other than Hayes reporting, does it say anywhere that Petreus was referring to the White House when he said “but it’s their call”?

How do we know he wasn’t referring to State alone? I personally suspect it was Mills and Bill McDonough, who has been O’Destroyer’s puppet since 2007: (apologies for the direct wiki-lift)

From 1996 to 1999, McDonough worked as an aide to the House International Relations Committee,[7] where he focused on Latin America.[2] McDonough then served as a senior foreign policy advisor to Senator Tom Daschle.[4] After Daschle’s re-election defeat in 2004, McDonough became legislative director for newly elected Senator Ken Salazar.[4] McDonough later served as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in 2004.[2]

In 2007, Senator Barack Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor, Navy reservist Mark Lippert, was called into active duty and recruited McDonough to serve as his replacement during Lippert’s deployment to Iraq.[4][8] McDonough continued to serve as a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.[2][9]

After Obama’s election, he joined the administration as the National Security Council’s head of Strategic Communication.[7] He also served as National Security Council Chief of Staff.[10]

On October 22, 2010, President Barack Obama announced that McDonough would be replacing Thomas E. Donilon as Deputy National Security Advisor, who was leaving his position to succeed General James L. Jones as National Security Advisor.[11]

His main gig was NSC head of Strategic Communication (liar’s liar). He has been in charge of making stuff up for Obama since the old days, and got the WH Chief of Staff job when Lew left in the middle of the night for his good work and for his silence.

He lives right under Obama’s desk, and he’s subject to subpoena, I’ll bet.

Having said that, context is needed for Petreus’ comment. There’s nothing there that says it was the White House. He could simply have meant State in the plural sense. More from Petreaus, please.

winoceros on May 12, 2013 at 7:21 PM

It’s not like Watergate……I mean nobody died in Watergate right?

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Oh Lord…Denis McDonough. Long day.

winoceros on May 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM

We’ve tracked McDonough’s bootlicking Muslim outreach for years.

Here are some of my favorite Dhimmi McDonough moments:

Speaking with ISNA, preparing to receive them into the White House for a tour and a meeting with Obama. (Muslim Brotherhood in USA)

“Over the past two years, I-along with my White House colleagues-have benefited from the advice of many of your [Magid’s] organizations through our Office of Public Engagement,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough on March 6, 2011 during a speech at the mosque that Magid leads.

In his attempts to bring the Muslim vote [read: protection racket] from the local sycophantic level to a nationwide submission:

“the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.”

In March of 2011, he gives one of a billion patronizing tropes to a speech at the ADAMS Center, an organization devoted to pacifying faiths resistant to Muslim invasion.

“I work with President Obama every day. He’s been focused on this since he took office. Behind closed doors, he has insisted that his national security team make this a priority. The effort that I’ve been leading is a policy committee made up of deputy secretaries from departments and agencies across government. We meet regularly to consider new policy, drawing not only on the expertise of our traditional national security agencies, but also the departments of Education and Health and Human Services.”

Read the full remarks to understand the depths of slavishness that Obama’s throng of submissives willing engage in. It’s disgusting.

He’s used to following orders on even the most banal decisions.

The speech had already been written for the Muslim outreach event he was scheduled to speak at for the night of 9/12/12, and you can see they had to hurriedly insert remarks about the Benghazi attack, and he talks about the video, but doesn’t say it was a terrorist attack.

He was fingered for this back in January. There’s no way he’s not the one. This was a group that was used to working with each other as a unit focused on achieving the goals of the hive. They knew their words would be music to Obama’s ears.

winoceros on May 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Benghazi is just the tip of the iceberg. Essentially the same thing happened to 30 US soldiers including US Navy SEALS. Please research the Extortion 17 helicopter shoot down in Afghanistan. There is at least one video that runs 3 hours and features family members of those US Navy SEALS killed. I will apologize to the moderator and all those I might offend here. I wouldn’t pizz on Obama’s ass if it was on fire. This sweet old boy and his whole damned corrupt administration needs to be impeached. My anger over what took place at Benghazi was amplified 10 fold when I found this video at YouTube. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqtJrJ40Cio&hd=1

hamradio on May 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Anyway instead of spending time trying to find the terrorists who killed our ambassador, our media and agenda driven GOP frauds are wasting everyones money arguing about talking points. Shame.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

You’re more and more lame.

itsspideyman on May 12, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Saw this on the web today…..6 minutes of awesome palate cleansing!!

http://vimeo.com/66017973

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

.
Yes it is, Pappy’ !

Thanks for sharing that. : )

listens2glenn on May 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Douglas Macgregor (retired Army colonel and author of “Breaking the Phalanx): “Petraeus is a remarkable piece of fiction created and promoted by neocons in government, the media and academia, How does an officer with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert Storm become a division CDR in 2003, a man who for 35 years shamelessly reinforced whatever dumb idea his superiors advanced regardless of its impact on soldiers, let alone the nation, a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp, military assistant and executive officer to four stars get so far?

How does the same man who balked at closing with and destroying the enemy in 2003 in front of Baghdad agree to sacrifice more than a thousand American lives and destroy thousands of others installing Iranian national power in Baghdad with a surge that many in and out of uniform warned against? Then, how does this same man repeat the self-defeating tactics one more time in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Petraeus was always a useful fool in the Leninist sense for his political superiors and that is precisely how history will judge him.”

VorDaj on May 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM

Anyway instead of spending time trying to find the terrorists who killed our ambassador, our media and agenda driven GOP frauds are wasting everyones money arguing about talking points. Shame.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

This troll is either stupid or has big balls.

Your president has wasted the entire time since it occurred. A story about a spontaneous demonstration. A lie about an online video. All to cover a failure to respond. All because they couldn’t admit we were still targets of terrorism.

smoothsailing on May 13, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Anyway instead of spending time trying to find the terrorists who killed our ambassador, our media and agenda driven GOP frauds are wasting everyones money arguing about talking points. Shame.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Too funny. I guess when you have nothing but lies and incompetence, you resort to this kind of pathetic defense.

Monkeytoe on May 13, 2013 at 8:02 AM

How does the same man who balked at closing with and destroying the enemy in 2003 in front of Baghdad agree to sacrifice more than a thousand American lives and destroy thousands of others installing Iranian national power in Baghdad with a surge that many in and out of uniform warned against? Then, how does this same man repeat the self-defeating tactics one more time in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Petraeus was always a useful fool in the Leninist sense for his political superiors and that is precisely how history will judge him.”

VorDaj on May 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM

I’m no fan of Patreaus, but what does this mean? The surge was unsuccessful? It was self-defeating?

And, I don’t think you can blame Patreaus for “installing Iranian national power in Baghdad” to the extent that is what happened. Policy regarding Iraq and what to do with it after Saddam was made by civilian leadership, not the military.

And, I would guess that 80% of generals, if not more, fit the description of Patreaus. One doesn’t rise to the rank of general without being a politician. They system isn’t set up to reward “mavericks” who buck superiors and don’t play nice with others. You don’t become a general by arguing with your superiors and refusing orders.

Monkeytoe on May 13, 2013 at 8:12 AM

If Patreaus thought they were “useless” he should have said so back THEN.
He has no honor.

mmcnamer1 on May 13, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4