Appearing before Congressional committees on Friday, former CIA Director David Petraeus gave yet another version of events concerning Benghazi Gate, effectively throwing Barack Obama and his White House staff under the bus. According to those elected officials who attended the closed-door hearings, Petraeus claims that the intelligence assessment of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was immediately recognized as a terrorist attack. The the ′talking points memo′ provided to the White House, and later United Nations ambassador Susan Rice, clearly indicated this as well as the group Ansar al-Sharia, loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda, was responsible for the assault. However, somewhere along the food-chain, the memo was altered, disregarding any terrorist group as being involved and putting the blame on a ′flash-mob′ caused out of anger over a stupid You-Tube video few had seen. So who is telling the truth?
The White House on Friday, after Petraeus gave his testimony, did acknowledge one edit change in the memo that Rice later read from during her five appearances on Sunday morning talk shows. They say that they only changed the description of the consulate, calling it instead a ′government diplomatic facility.′ During his own press conference on Thursday, Barack Hussein Obama admitted that Rice was dispatched to do the Sunday talk shows by the White House. He even admitted that she had really nothing to do with Benghazi, which naturally begs the question why send her out in the first place? All of the actual ′players′ in Benghazi Gate, such as National Intelligence Chief James Clapper, were all in town that weekend and could have done the talk shows themselves. Why did they pass?
The current theory, answering these two questions, seems to go like this. Susan Rice was selected by Obama to do this ′mission′ for his administration as a test for her to be promoted to Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton leaves. That she would serve as a ′good soldier′ and provide political cover, since the White House knew that what she would say was not the truth. That Petraeus gave his preliminary testimony before Congress on September 14, also blaming the You-Tube video, despite knowing that the real cause was due to a terrorist attack, in order to save his job as CIA Director. That Barack Hussein Obama was holding the FBI investigation into the Petraeus-Paula Broadwell affair over Petraeus to force him to play along with deceiving the American people.
Oh, what a web we weave! The problem, as we all know, is that such cover-ups in Washington DC are bound to unravel. Benghazi Gate is far worse than Watergate in terms of the damage being done to our political institutions. Barack Hussein Obama is dragging America through the mud he himself created as he continues to lie and bully others from speaking the truth. Former CIA Director David Petraeus may be starting to shed light on the truth. If you think w have heard it all you are mistaken. The Benghazi talking points memo given to Susan Rice were altered by somebody at the White House. They admit to some editing already. As the story continues to unfold, the truth behind who did what and who knew and ordered the cover-up will come out. It always does.
November 18th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Can you imagine the feeding frenzy of the media if this happened under a Republican president? That’s the one thing that SO surprises me about this. We know someone is lying at some level, yet the press, while reporting some of this, seems very passive about investigating what seems to be a brewing scandal.
The media has the right to emphasize or ignore what they choose. That said, any fair-minded person has to admit this is big trouble for the Obama Administration. The president wants this to go away I’m sure, but I would like to know who knew what and when.
Susan Rice seems to be a competent lady. She was sent out to speak for the president on this matter, but what she said was wrong, and the CIA knew it was wrong and seemingly did not correct the administration.
The biggest problem for the president is not the incident itself, it’s the cover-up that followed, and now the covering up of that cover up. The media might be “all in” for the president, but even they can’t keep the truth from coming out eventually.
November 18th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Obama lying? Do cows moo?
November 18th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Yeah Dave.
“Eventually” is the problem.
Is Obama aware that there may be some impeachable offenses ?
And will his administration do all they can to hide dereliction, complacency, incompetence and contempt by confusing the issues as much as possible ?
Will they do their best to drag this out as long as possible so that when we do “eventually” find the truth it wont matter ?
I think so.
November 18th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
I believe Obama is not going to get away with Benghazi screw-up even though the media refuses to do their job. The truth has a nasty ability of rearing its ugly head weither the propoganda media wants to report it or not.
November 18th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
I am sorry, but wishful thinking aside, Obama is not getting impeached over this and I have another shocking thought.
If the Republicans continue to make Benghazi the focus of their efforts, they will lose more Congressional seats.
It doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, the electorate, via vote and contributions to exit polls, made it clear they care about the economy above all else.
They demand bipartisanship on matters such as the fiscal cliff and will not look positively upon any efforts not addressing what they think is important.
Other than a small minority, has there been an overwhelming outcry among the American population regarding Benghazi?
The GOP should consider the cost of dedicating their time and focus to this issue and ascertain the political cost of doing so.
November 19th, 2012 at 6:36 am
@ Buzz,
The reason there has yet to be a major outcry from the public at large is due to the fact that most of the Liberal Media has been avoiding the story. Benghazi only became widely known since the connection with the Petraeus sex scandal, for as well all know, sex sells!
You kind of have to wonder where Iran-Contra would have gone without Jessica Hahn? Just another bunch of old men and their ‘potted-plant’ lawyers until her gams made the scene!
November 19th, 2012 at 6:44 am
There is just so much here on several levels that the Obama administration is going to catch some flak…
First, you have the whole pre-attack business of requests for more security that were not acted upon.
Then you have the mystery of what were our people doing there in the first place? Were they running captured Libyan weapons to the Syrian rebels in secret? Were they trying to block such shipments? Was the ‘annex’ being used to interrogate militants despite Obama’s executive order?
By the time we get to the actual attack and Obama’s response to it, we already have a whole pile of potential indictments that members of his administration may be subject to. Even after that, we now have this new element of cover-ups before the election, including who knew what about the Petraeus affair?
Its one big mess and it is too early at this point to see how this will play out. But there seems little doubt that Susan Rice will take a fall and probably a few others, too.