Petraeus resigns

[Th'Pusher]

Just got breaking news alert from politico

[ChumpDumper]

Gotta get to Iowa.

[Th'Pusher]

Extramarital affair :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Wasn't thins announced Tuesday by the London times?

Some speculate he's getting ready for a 2016 run for president. I think not.

[DJ Mbenga]

pretty much every position other than VP is looking to hire right now in the adminstration lol

[SA210]

So long murderer, they'll just insert another one to betray us.

[ChumpDumper]

lol throwaway line bot

[Juggity]

pretty much every position other than VP is looking to hire right now in the adminstration lol

Just three I think, Sec. of State, Treasury, and now CIA director.

The CIA director job has a high turnover rate too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency

6 directors in 8 years

[SA210]

The excuse they gave was an affair lol

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcK1zsy5RZw

[symple19]

Wgaf about his personal life. I would expect him to be in the mix for 2016

[boutons_deux]

He could get a military instructor job in SA!

[CosmicCowboy]

Doesn't have to testify to Congress about Benghazi now...

[101A]

Doesn't have to testify to Congress about Benghazi now...

He was supposed to next week.

Even I (very cynical about conspiracy theories) raise an eyebrow at the timing of this.

Also, why can't he still testify? (not asking you, cc - just curious)

[CosmicCowboy]

He was supposed to next week.

Even I (very cynical about conspiracy theories) raise an eyebrow at the timing of this.

Also, why can't he still testify? (not asking you, cc - just curious)

Don't know. all news outlets reporting he won't testify.

[Stringer_Bell]

Doesn't have to testify to Congress about Benghazi now...

:eyebrows

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone think congress really wants to get to the bottom? They probably would have announced they wouldn't proceed after the elections, regardless of other things.

[CosmicCowboy]

Does anyone think congress really wants to get to the bottom? They probably would have announced they wouldn't proceed after the elections, regardless of other things.

Hell yeah they want to get to the bottom of it. The bottom will be VERY interesting. Word is that Hillary kept an impeccable paper trail and has lawyered up with some very high priced counsel. Inquiring minds want to know where that paper trail leads.

[Wild Cobra]

Hell yeah they want to get to the bottom of it. The bottom will be VERY interesting. Word is that Hillary kept an impeccable paper trail and has lawyered up with some very high priced counsel. Inquiring minds want to know where that paper trail leads.
I do hope you are right and that I am wrong. The aftermath of elections do seem to change things, now that the campaigning is over.

[CosmicCowboy]

I do hope you are right and that I am wrong. The aftermath of elections do seem to change things, now that the campaigning is over.

Breaking rumor is that she requested a rapid response team and the white house denied it. Bill wanted her to come clean before the election and she was a good soldier and didn't. Now they have hired private council to defend her in the cover up investigation. All allegations at this time but allegedly came directly from Hilllary's attorney.

[Wild Cobra]

Breaking rumor is that she requested a rapid response team and the white house denied it. Bill wanted her to come clean before the election and she was a good soldier and didn't. Now they have hired private council to defend her in the cover up investigation. All allegations at this time but allegedly came directly from Hilllary's attorney.
Interesting. I haven't followed it at all. Looks like she doesn't want to fall on her sword...

Think she will bring Obama down? Think we can have an impeachment?

[z0sa]

Wow. Could there be some traction building for the Whitehouse mishandling accusations?

[SA210]

If you believe that Petraeus resigned over an affair I have some of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to sell you

[CosmicCowboy]

I repeat, these are rumors and I am not saying I believe them but they are just a google search away if you want to check. This is all breaking today.

[CosmicCowboy]

And please don't LOL Beck.

Here is an example:


.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at
the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked... but President Obama
denied the request

The news broke on Blaze TV's Wilkow Show by best-selling author Ed Klein,
who said... legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this
information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former
President Bill Clinton has been "urging" his wife [Hillary] to release official
State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the
compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing
the election.

Klein explained that everyone knew what was happening in
Benghazi... Wilkow asked, "If everybody knew this including the White House, who
would have given the order to go in and save the ambassador?"

Klein: "The
President... he should have given the order to use the rapid reaction
force…"

Wilkow: "Not Petraeus?"

Klein: "Well it has to come from
the president."

Wilkow also asked Klein about Valerie Jarrett, who's the
Senior Adviser to Obama and... her role in this cover-up.

Klein said, "We
don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes,
and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without
passing it by Valerie Jarrett... so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett who
is also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line... she has a direct line to David Axelrod,
was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House."

This latest news
comes on the heels [of news] that former CIA officer, Clare Lopez[, who] was a
guest on the Glenn Beck TV on Monday evening... told Beck, "They let our
ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn't do
anything about it."

[CosmicCowboy]

Another:


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Appearing on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having “big fights” for “two or three weeks” about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton’s legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would “exonerate” herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn’t at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn’t want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party.

On Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier on Wednesday, Klein said his information comes from two “very good” sources.

Wilkow pointed out the obvious, that the Obamas and the Clintons have a “very behind the scenes, tense relationship” — to put it lightly.

“I said to you last night, and I think I stand corrected, that it seemed like Obama out-Clintoned the Clintons,” Wilkow said. “But Clinton seems to have gone along with all of this because he knew that Hillary would be exonerated in the end.”

[Drachen]

I am curious, why would Petreaus, a republican, someone who some thought might run for president in 2016, fall on his sword for Obama?

[CommanderMcBragg]

I am curious, why would Petreaus, a republican, someone who some thought might run for president in 2016, fall on his sword for Obama?

Simple. Code of Honor.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Clinton's have had plenty of time to get ahead of this story if they wanted to.

The silence is interesting.

[Drachen]

Simple. Code of Honor.

Lying about some people in his charge getting killed? HONORABLE!

[z0sa]

I am curious, why would Petreaus, a republican, someone who some thought might run for president in 2016, fall on his sword for Obama?

Same. It's the major hole in a possible cover up story right now.

[CosmicCowboy]

I am curious, why would Petreaus, a republican, someone who some thought might run for president in 2016, fall on his sword for Obama?

Hypothetical:

He was blackmailed with the affair scoop by the white house to doctor up a phony timeline showing it was impossible for anyone to have helped the guys in Libya.

He realized he was going to have to testify under oath to congress and realized the criminal implications if he lied and reconsidered and gave the White House a big "fuck you" and fessed up to the affair publicly.

Hell, he may actually testify voluntarily now. It's just the media saying he won't testify.

[z0sa]

^ according to the latest reports, acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify in Patraeus' stead.

[Drachen]

Hypothetical:

He was blackmailed with the affair scoop by the white house to doctor up a phony timeline showing it was impossible for anyone to have helped the guys in Libya.

He realized he was going to have to testify under oath to congress and realized the criminal implications if he lied and reconsidered and gave the White House a big "fuck you" and fessed up to the affair publicly.

Hell, he may actually testify voluntarily now. It's just the media saying he won't testify.

This is what I am saying, it makes no sense that he wouldn't testify. If the WH was leaning on him, and he just took away their blackmail tool, I would say, "fuck you my dirty laundry is out and now its going to have some company". Why even wait until the congressional hearing?

[Twisted_Dawg]

Spy vs Spy?

Perhaps he was outed by a someone that knew about his affair and was pissed off by his handling of Libya? I can see some angry CIA officer with insight as to exactly what went down, outing him in revenge.

[Drachen]

He would still testify.

[clambake]

clinging

[clambake]

if true, who will be the scooter libby?

[TeyshaBlue]

Hypothetical:

He was blackmailed with the affair scoop by the white house to doctor up a phony timeline showing it was impossible for anyone to have helped the guys in Libya.

He realized he was going to have to testify under oath to congress and realized the criminal implications if he lied and reconsidered and gave the White House a big "fuck you" and fessed up to the affair publicly.

Hell, he may actually testify voluntarily now. It's just the media saying he won't testify.




http://youtu.be/1z6o1GIEsQE

[mercos]

Just a couple of days after the election and there is already impeachment talk. lol

[SA210]

I support impeachment :tu

[boutons_deux]

Some called Petraeus' discipline and single-minded commitment (he has almost no life outside of military, except extramarital screwing) is so great that they called him St. Petraeus. :lol

anyway, his "Iraq surge won the war" rep was nothing but PR by himself and dubya's WH covering for the disaster Petraeus' surge was.

[EVAY]

Guys, I hate to burst some perfectly delicious conspiracy theories involving Petraeus' resignation and the Benghazi attack, but it is now being reported that the mistress in the affair was being investigated by the FBI. It appears that perhaps she had access to Petraeus' emails and to classified materials, which would be a massive security protocol breach. This looks to be something more along the lines of what happened to Jack Welch at GE.

You give your mistress access to things she shouldn't have access to and it bites you in the ass.

D/CIA is a lot worse than GE's insider trading secrets.

[LnGrrrR]

If so, :lol at Petraeus. Of course, will he see jail time? Surely not, even though seven members of the SEALS (including one from SEAL team 6) got LORs and probably can't reenlist.

[Wild Cobra]

Spy vs Spy?
These guys are still going strong, since 1961!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Spy-vs-spy.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_vs_spy)

[Nbadan]

...but Obama never said the words terror attack...

So Petraeus obviously fell on his sword

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

lol Glenn Beck

[CosmicCowboy]

Guys, I hate to burst some perfectly delicious conspiracy theories involving Petraeus' resignation and the Benghazi attack, but it is now being reported that the mistress in the affair was being investigated by the FBI. It appears that perhaps she had access to Petraeus' emails and to classified materials, which would be a massive security protocol breach. This looks to be something more along the lines of what happened to Jack Welch at GE.

You give your mistress access to things she shouldn't have access to and it bites you in the ass.

D/CIA is a lot worse than GE's insider trading secrets.

True, but why was Holder investigating/spying on Petraeus to start with?

[boutons_deux]

Woman Linked to Petraeus Is a West Point Graduate and Lifelong High Achiever


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/10/us/10broadwell_337/10broadwell_337-popup.jpg

Paula Broadwell, who wrote a biography of David H. Petraeus, moved into public view on Friday after an affair with Mr. Petraeus was uncovered.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/linked-to-petraeus-paula-broadwell-is-lifelong-high-achiever.html?hp&_r=0

[EVAY]

True, but why was Holder investigating/spying on Petraeus to start with?

My understanding is that it was part of an ongoing investigation into government cyber security that the FBI had going. Some of the reports in the press are now saying that
the FBI literally stumbled onto the affair through the other investigation, but once it was uncovered, the implications for potential (not necessarily actual, but potential) security breaches couldn't be ignored or swept under the rug.

I cannot abide Holder and I think he was Obama's worst appointment (with the possible exception of Sibelius), but I don't think this is anything other than what is
being reported in the MSM now, i.e., the mistress potentially having access to emails or classified info. on a computer. Another recent Director had to leave under a cloud of having brought information home...no suggestion that anyone there saw it....this sort of thing has to be super-closely held.

[symple19]

Perfect name for the book

[Twisted_Dawg]

True, but why was Holder investigating/spying on Petraeus to start with?

Supposedely, the FBI was checking his computer with a report an alledged breach of the computer. Now, was there indeed a breach, or was this breach manufactued to use as an excuse to search his computer? Whie searching, they discovered numerous emails to Paula Broadwell.

So many questions if this is true. If there was indeed an alledged breach or intrusion of his computer, what type was it---external or something installed on the computer direct from a thumb drive? Did Petraeus discover the breach or another intel agency? If Petraeus discovered it, why wouldn't the CIA counter intel investigate the breach and the computer? My guess is the FBI was tipped off and the investigation came under their authority.

Most of us have worked in offices where married people were having affairs and we all knew it. It is hard to hide. People get sloppy and it is usually written all over their faces. I'm sure more than one of the people that knew either Petraeus or Broadwell knew of the affair. So, it is ironic that the nations's chief spook, whose very job is based on stealth, deception, etc was ruined by having an affair. Ruined by using an agency computer to correspond with his lover.

This story is just starting. I don't buy the theory that he was outed by Obama hacks to keep him from testifying as he can still be required to do so with a Congressional subpeona. One wonders if Petraeus was outed by another intel asset, or, if this gets a bit more sinister with Broadwell tied to some foreign intel agency?

[SA210]

Perfect name for the book

:lol

[Twisted_Dawg]

If this is true, this might explain the situation. A brilliant man with a distinguisged military career and the CIA chief brought down by his foolish pursuit of a peice of ass.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573


Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election.

In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details. However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.

The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.

Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

Neither Petraeus nor the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment.

FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.

The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election.

In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related. The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate.

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

[boutons_deux]

" raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election."

Newsmax! A main VWRC publication of paranoid fairy tales :lol

Petraeus outed a couple days before the election would have gotten Bishop Gecko 300+ electoral votes! :lol

As soon as the FBI knew Petraeus was at risk of compromise and blackmail, he was immediately neither because they were all over his hypocritical ass and all his communications and contacts. duh

[Capt Bringdown]

Petraues likes 'em a bit mannish. I wonder if he paid for her bolt-ons?
http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/petr.jpg

[SA210]

Petraues likes 'em a bit mannish. I wonder if he paid for her bolt-ons?
http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/petr.jpg

Which one is Petraues

[boutons_deux]

Congressional Repugs got a brand new hobby horse to ride into deeper irrelevance, as they try stick Barry personally with Petraeus' dicking around.

Congress wants answers from FBI, CIA on Petraeus

CIA officers long had expressed concern about Broadwell's unprecedented access to the director. She frequently visited the spy agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., to meet Petraeus in his office, accompanied him on morning runs around the CIA grounds and often attended public functions as his guest, according to two former intelligence officials.

Petraeus' staff when he was overseeing the war in Afghanistan similarly had been concerned about the time she spent with their boss.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41685/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=xDeEsQjd&full=true#display

[DMC]

"Broadwell told Baldwin that she embedded with Petraeus' staff and troops in the field, sharing their hardships and risks." -CNN


So the troops also need to resign.

[EVAY]

What is being reported this morning in the NY Times and on tv morning talk shows is that Eric Cantor was approached by another republican representative from the state of Washington around 2 weeks ago. The Washington rep. was a republican, and the FBI whistle-blower went to the republicans. Then at some point around October 31st, Cantor's office contacted the FBI about allegations of a cover-up of the Petraeus affair.

This looks like it was all republicans doing this to Petraeus, and no one in the Obama administration wanted it to happen.

[Winehole23]

Paula Broadwell, the woman reported to be having an affair with CIA Director David Petraeus, sent harassing emails to a State Department official, the AP reported. (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-target-emails-petraeus-paramour-state-department-military-liaison)

The woman who received emails from Broadwell that prompted her to alert FBI reportedly works as a State Department military liaison.


According to the Washington Post, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-probe-of-petraeus-triggered-by-e-mail-threats-from-biographer-officials-say/2012/11/10/d2fc52de-2b68-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?hpid=z1) the woman was worried for her safety and contacted the FBI for protection.


The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/fbi-said-to-have-stumbled-into-news-of-david-petraeus-affair.html) that the woman's complaint led the FBI to learn of Petraeus' affair. According to the Times, officials decided to investigate Broadwell and stumbled upon emails that revealed the relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/paula-broadwell-emails-david-petraeus-state-department_n_2114319.html

[SnakeBoy]

Petraues likes 'em a bit mannish. I wonder if he paid for her bolt-ons?
http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/petr.jpg

Cmon it's quite a step up for him. Can't say I blame the guy.

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/609/480/86420956-david-petraeus.jpg

[Expert]

This entire thing is a political move to prevent him from testifying on Benghazi. What's the odds this happens just after an election? Ok since you asked, it's 243,694:1.

[Winehole23]

Petraeus may still testify.

[boutons_deux]

"may" ?

100% certitude that Repugs will drag him before Congress and crucify him, "their" hero who "won" Iraq, while still trying to stick Benghazi on Barry personally.

Some Repug bitch already said she would block ANY appointment of anybody associated with Benghazi. This is the kind if "work" Repugs do in Congress.

And they'll put up some abortion bills and amendments, and pass Ryan's austerity/depression provoking budget a 3rd time. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Yesterday on meet the press, Bob Woodward suggested that Petraeus' testifying would likely back up the WH version of events.

[scott]

I bet we'll find out that Obama was being 9/11/01 now too.

Massive cover-up.

[Winehole23]

Yesterday on meet the press, Bob Woodward suggested that Petraeus' testifying would likely back up the WH version of events.loyal soldier falls on sword; more fodder for tinhats, tbh

[boutons_deux]

Tampa Is Seen as Social Link for Unfolding Scandal

Records show that Ms. Kelley and her husband, a doctor, have been subject to a string of lawsuits over debts, according to a report in The Tampa Bay Times, which said the Kelleys owed a bank nearly $2.2 million, including attorney fees, on a building they own. They also ran a cancer charity, which appears to be defunct. A 2007 tax filing, the latest available, shows the charity raised $157,284 that year, but spent just $58,417 on program services, described as conducting research to improve the lives of terminally ill adult cancer patients.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/tampa-social-scene-at-center-of-petraeus-scandal.xml?f=19

Sound like shitbag frauds way in over their heads.

[boutons_deux]

It's Wonkette, but trashy Repugs deserved being trashed.

A Shady Charity, Millions In Debt, And ‘Diplomatic Inviolability’: Tampa’s Good-Time Kelley Sisters Are Perfect Republicans


http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jill-kelley-natalie-khawam.jpg

http://wonkette.com/489797/a-shady-charity-millions-in-debt-and-diplomatic-inviolability-tampas-good-time-kelley-sisters-are-perfect-republicans

[Jacob1983]

The mistress looks like a somewhat young Lauren Holly maybe during her Dumb and Dumber years. Sexy.

[Nbadan]

This whole Benghazi thing is getting as stupid as birther-gate and the whole fake hurricane-Union-worker scandal....the CIA found nothing, numerous investigations have found nothing, but did expose a secret CIA base in Benghazi, thanks to Issa....

[boutons_deux]

"This whole Benghazi thing is getting as stupid as birther-gate"

It's a Repug bad-faith, all-politics-all-the-time speciality, going back to the VWRC smearing and witch-hunting of the Clintons in '90s.

Notice how all the witch-hunting totally disappeared Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 (except naturally and automatically vs candidate Kerry)

[101A]

It's Wonkette, but trashy Repugs deserved being trashed.

A Shady Charity, Millions In Debt, And ‘Diplomatic Inviolability’: Tampa’s Good-Time Kelley Sisters Are Perfect Republicans


http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jill-kelley-natalie-khawam.jpg

http://wonkette.com/489797/a-shady-charity-millions-in-debt-and-diplomatic-inviolability-tampas-good-time-kelley-sisters-are-perfect-republicans

Actually, I think they are more tied to the Dems:

http://patdollard.com/2012/11/top-dem-fundraiser-gave-jill-kellys-twin-sister-mysterious-300000-personal-loan-sister-also-claims-ties-to-john-kerry/

[boutons_deux]

I heard a phone recording yesterday where the Jill bitch called up to bitch about "harassment" emails and other shit her self-aggrandizing ego didn't like saying she had "diplomatic immunity" :lol

[JudynTX]

Cmon it's quite a step up for him. Can't say I blame the guy.

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/609/480/86420956-david-petraeus.jpg

He's no Prince Charming himself.

[boutons_deux]

Limbaugh Theory: White House Is Blackmailing Petraeus Over Benghazi Testimony


LIMBAUGH: Krauthammer was on Special Report with Bret Baier last night on the Fox News Channel.

KRAUTHAMMER: He understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration. And he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet. And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That's the thing that connects the two scandals, and that's the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant.

RUSH: Okay. So, as far as Krauthammer is concerned, the Obama regime held the scandal over Petraeus' head for favorable Benghazi testimony. But now? Now Petraeus has resigned, or been pushed out, whatever is the case. So now the theory is that Petraeus is free to tell the truth and so his testimony on September 13th -- which was, by the way, "It was a spontaneously combustible little protest out there brought about by the filmmaker."

Petraeus did say that, that he traveled to Benghazi himself and did his own investigation. Now he's been fired, or allowed to resign, because somebody who knew about this affair for a long time finally went public with it. You know, it's a reasonable thing to think he might have been blackmailed over this, and it's reasonable to think that he might have wanted to get out from under the blackmail by resigning.

So now everybody's waiting with bated breath for his testimony tomorrow and/or Friday before the Senate and/or House in their off-site, closed-door committees. And there's a bunch of conventional wisdom that's sprung to life that says, "He's gonna go in there and he's gonna tell everybody that it wasn't the video! He's gonna go in there and tell everybody it was not spontaneous-combustion protest.

"He's gonna go in there and tell 'em it was Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda was there, and they were building up, and they planned the attack, and it was for a whole bunch of reasons, but the video had nothing to do with it." I'm sorry; that's not what I think is going to happen. I just don't think it works that way. I mean, a lot of people are holding out hope for honesty and integrity and the American way and doing the right thing.

But would somebody tell me where that's happening in our government?

Would somebody tell me where that can be relied on anywhere, by anybody, at the government level?

I don't see it.

And I think they've still got something to hold over Petraeus.


If they want him to tell the story about the video, that's what he's gonna tell.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/14/limbaugh-theory-white-house-is-blackmailing-pet/191383

greasebag Limbaugh and der Krauthammer, now we're really gonna get the truth out! :lol

[boutons_deux]

yep, the "Onward Christian Soldiers" just need more training! :lol

Panetta Orders Review of Ethics Training for Military Officers

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/panetta-orders-review-of-ethics-training-for-officers.xml;jsessionid=AE1FE3478091CFA77E6A3F1813 BAD1CF?f=21

As if the military had ANY expertise, authority in ethics and morals. :lol

[boutons_deux]

The Ultimate Guide To McCain’s Smear Campaign Against Susan Rice (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/15/1195981/mccain-susan-rice-false-attacks/)


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) launched an all-out assault (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/14/1187341/mccain-hypocrisy-susan-rice/) on the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice yesterday in an attempt to block her from becoming the next Secretary of State. McCain claims that Rice’s role in disseminating information about the attacks on U.S. assets in Benghazi, Libya in September means she’s “not qualified” to be the nation’s top diplomat. Because of these alleged missteps on Benghazi, McCain said (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/14/1187341/mccain-hypocrisy-susan-rice/), “I will do everything in my power to block her from becoming Secretary of State.”

But the evidence to back up McCain’s attacks on Rice is thin, if non-existant. Below is a list of McCain’s main attacks on Rice, and why they’re either false or misleading:

1. McCain attacks Rice for saying anti-Islam video may have sparked Benghazi attack. Referring to Rice’s suggestion on Sept. 16 that the Benghazi attacks may have been sparked by animosity over an anti-Islam video, the Arizona Republican claimed yesterday on Fox News that Rice “went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.” He added on CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/14/acd.02.html): “It was obvious to one and all that this was not a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ because in real time, they saw there was no demonstration.”

REALITY: Rice was merely repeating U.S. intelligence assessments. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html?hpid=z2) that CIA talking points on the Benghazi attack dated Sept. 15, or the day before Rice’s Sunday show appearances, stated (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/14/fox-tries-to-prevent-susan-rice-nomination-with/191379) that “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

And this is exactly what Rice said, for example, on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sept. 16 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513819/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-16-2012-libyan-pres-magariaf-amb-rice-and-sen-mccain/?tag=contentMain;contentBody). “Soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in.”

And on Sept. 16, Rice did not, as McCain suggests, offer a definitive assessment of what took place. In fact, she cautioned (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/11/fox-news-reimagines-amb-susan-rices-remarks-on/190539) that it could change after an investigation. “[T]here’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing,” she said. “And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.”


2. McCain says the anti-Islam video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack. In his attempt to discredit Rice, McCain claimed on CNN last night that Rice’s assessment that the attack in Benghazi was sparked by a “spontaneous demonstration” against an anti-Islam video is “totally false.”

REALITY: It is still unclear what started the Benghazi assault. The New York Times reported last month (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=2&ref=politics&) that the attackers “did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.”


3. McCain says U.S. officials knew immediately that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the Benghazi attack. The Arizona senator claimed yesterday that “[e]verybody knew that it was an al Qaeda attack and she continued to tell the world through all of the talk shows [on Sept. 16] that it was a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ sparked by a video.”

REALITY: Al-Qaeda’s involvement is still speculation; attack and anti-Islam video demonstration are not mutually exclusive . The event could both have been a terror attack and inspired by a demonstration against an anti-Islam video. These two factors are not mutually exclusive and Rice said as much on Sept. 16. Moreover, definitive proof has yet to emerge (http://news.yahoo.com/us-al-qaida-consulate-attackers-libya-152009435.html) that the Benghazi attackers were affiliate with Al-Qaeda.


4: McCain says Rice’s Sept. 16 talking points did not originate from U.S. intelligence agencies. Some reporters have tried to inform McCain that Rice was merely giving the public information that American intelligence services provided her, but he seems to refuse to believe that the whole affair is anything but political. “Her talking points came from the White House, not from the DNI,” McCain said last night on CNN (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/mccain-rice-was-deceptive-on-libya/?hpt=ac_mid), referring to the Director of National Intelligence. “I think it’s patently obvious that the talking points that Ambassador Rice had didn’t come from the CIA. It came from the White House,” McCain said on Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/1969794239001/mccain-goes-after-obamas-failed-leadership/?playlist_id=86925).

REALITY: Rice’s Sept. 16 assessment of the Benghazi attack matched CIA and DNI analysis at that time. As noted above, Rice’s Sept. 16 statements mirror the CIA’s Sept. 15 assessment and the DNI’s office said a week later (http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-on-the-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi,-libya) that just after the Sept. 11 attack, “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests” and that it “provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.” If Rice’s talking points came from the White House, officials there didn’t alter them much from what the intelligence agencies were saying.


McCain wants a special Watergate-style investigation into the Benghazi attacks, but lawmakers, including many of his Republican colleagues, appear (https://twitter.com/mmcauliff/status/268821409889918977) to be satisfied (http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/14/3917531/3-republicans-demand-special-libya.html) with letting (https://by2prd0510.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=9BbXem74-kyywkTDw84nEVMfTbfGls8IWCWpEQxbtK4vR_Es6BoyI130e9X SzQWo8Y9fCgZyg34.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fusnews.nbcnews.com%2f_news%2f2012 %2f11%2f14%2f15167694-obama-slams-gop-criticism-of-un-ambassador-rice-over-benghazi-attack-as-outrageous%3flite) the ongoing investigations take their course. It also turns out that many Republicans in the Senate aren’t too keen on pre-judging Rice either (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/15/1194891/gop-mccain-rice/), should the President nominate her.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/15/1195981/mccain-susan-rice-false-attacks/

McLiar is still bitter from screwing up in 2008 by picking pitbull bitch as heartbeat-away mate who stole all the attention!

[boutons_deux]

so she really a consul in FL ... Korea! :lol
Petraeus scandal: Jill Kelley's South Korean link
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1115/Petraeus-scandal-Jill-Kelley-s-South-Korean-link?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[Nbadan]

What a fucken joke...


Benghazi Attack Details Aired
* * *

Like the hearings planned for Friday, Thursday's were held behind closed doors. But interviews with lawmakers indicated that over several hours, they were given a detailed description of the Sept. 11 assault by intelligence and law enforcement officials. The officials also spent about 30 minutes discussing the investigation that uncovered the Petraeus affair, lawmakers said.

Mr. Ruppersberger said officials described tandem attacks that targeted the U.S. consulate complex and, later, an annex building used by the CIA. The briefings revealed the far greater sophistication of the second attack on the CIA annex, which began hours after the first attack had ended, he said. The intelligence officials also provided a detailed explanation of conflicting intelligence reports that spurred intense political criticism in the lead-up to last week's presidential election.

* * *

The CIA's first analysis, prepared on the morning after the attack, said the assault appeared intentional and indicated it didn't appear to stem from a peaceful protest. That analysis also mentioned the possibility of connections to an al Qaeda affiliate.

By the next day, however, the assessment shifted. When Mr. Petraeus briefed lawmakers on Sept. 13 and 14, his briefing papers showed the CIA believed the attack stemmed from a protest. The CIA began receiving new information on Sept. 15 that casted doubt about the protest, but after vetting the intelligence, the agency maintained the assessment that there had been a protest.

The CIA maintained that assessment until Sept. 20, when intelligence officials told counterparts at the White House that it had changed. It took two more days for that change to be reflected in the briefing provided to President Barack Obama.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578119773412120776.html

Petraeus may have fucked up his assessment of Bengazi, but it was hardly worthy of millions of dollars in investigation and the exposing of a secret CIA base in the city and the assets that were working for the CIA that were terminated..

[Nbadan]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/phoenix030405/Creations2/benghazicream.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

Petraeus believed terrorists behind Libya attack
By KIMBERLY DOZIER | Associated Press – 25 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus (peh-TRAY'-uhs) has told Congress that references to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb were removed from the agency's draft talking points of what sparked the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
A congressional staffer says Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday that the CIA's talking points did name those groups.
Petraeus told lawmakers he wasn't sure which agency replaced the groups' names with the word "extremist" in the final draft. But he said he allowed other agencies to alter the talking points as they saw fit without asking for final review, to get them out quickly.
The staffer wasn't authorized to discuss the hearing publicly and described Petraeus' testimony to The Associated Press on a condition of anonymity.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm still trying to get ax read on what team red thinks is Obama's motivation to personally change the intel.

[CosmicCowboy]

Pretty blatant strawman there chumpy.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty blatant strawman there chumpy.OK, that's even more confusing. If you're not trying to pin this on Obama, what are you doing?

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, that's even more confusing. If you're not trying to pin this on Obama, what are you doing?

little different than saying "Obama changed the report personally"

The White House threw the CIA under the bus and claimed that they got bad intel.

CIA now says they reported it as a terrorist act and specifically named Al Queda and SOMEONE down the line changed the report.

who do YOU think had the motivation AND power to do that?

[ChumpDumper]

little different than saying "Obama changed the report personally"

The White House threw the CIA under the bus and claimed that they got bad intel.

CIA now says they reported it as a terrorist act and specifically named Al Queda and SOMEONE down the line changed the report.

who do YOU think had the motivation AND power to do that?This is what I'm asking you.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is what I'm asking you.

If you are asking my OPINION I think the White House altered the report and changed the talking points to a protest over the movie gone bad and stuck with that awful flawed plan until it was painfully obvious they weren't going to get away with it, then tried to throw the CIA under the bus for "bad intel".

[ChumpDumper]

If you are asking my OPINION I think the White House altered the report and changed the talking points to a protest over the movie gone bad and stuck with that awful flawed plan until it was painfully obvious they weren't going to get away with it, then tried to throw the CIA under the bus for "bad intel".Who specifically in the White House would want to go with a fake story and why?

In your opinion.

[CosmicCowboy]

And yeah, I think that the head of the CIA having an affair leaves him open to blackmail. Petraeus probably never expected the blackmail to come from the White House. It's looking more and ore like Petraeus told the White House he was going to tell the truth to congress and they tried to blackmail him with the affair and he said fuck you. Everything since then has been a smear campaign to try to discredit him.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who specifically in the White House would want to go with a fake story and why?

In your opinion.

http://tnstatenewsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/election-2012-e1349201848267.jpg

DUHHHHHH

[ChumpDumper]

http://tnstatenewsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/election-2012-e1349201848267.jpg

DUHHHHHHYou didn't answer the question.

Use your words.

[CosmicCowboy]

39_MDzf7zPM

[ChumpDumper]

That's a YouTube.

Innuendo doesn't work for truthers either, CC.

It's hilarious when people turn into giant vaginas on an anonymous message board when asked direct questions about what they believe.

[CosmicCowboy]

You didn't answer the question.

Use your words.

Really? Whether it was Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, or whoever, it really doesn't matter. Obama had to approve the talking points.

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Whether it was Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, or whoever, it really doesn't matter. Obama had to approve the talking points.So it wasn't a straw man after all.

:tu

[CosmicCowboy]

That's a YouTube.

Innuendo doesn't work for truthers either, CC.

It's hilarious when people turn into giant vaginas on an anonymous message board when asked direct questions about what they believe.

Says the biggest internet vagina of all time.

[boutons_deux]

GOP Rep Says CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador’s Statements On Libya (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/16/1203921/peter-king-cia-approved-rice-libya-statements/)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/18/1040521/peter-king-obama-libya-4-minutes/) of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/16/1203921/peter-king-cia-approved-rice-libya-statements/

[CosmicCowboy]

So it wasn't a straw man after all.

:tu

You said CHANGED IT PERSONALLY bitch. Strawman

[ChumpDumper]

Says the biggest internet vagina of all time.Attempting to be butch now won't help you.

[ChumpDumper]

You said CHANGED IT PERSONALLY bitch. StrawmanNah, he had the final say changing the talking points in your fantasy.

[RandomGuy]

That's a YouTube.

Innuendo doesn't work for truthers either, CC.

It's hilarious when people turn into giant vaginas on an anonymous message board when asked direct questions about what they believe.

http://d12xzpun4kqsb2.cloudfront.net/gen/constrain/500/500/80/2012/07/14/00/2n/y6/poziwu35us13okz.jpg?imageId=23910244

[CosmicCowboy]

So it wasn't a protest over a movie?

[ChumpDumper]

So it wasn't a protest over a movie?Why would anyone think that story would be maintained as a lie?

[LnGrrrR]

And yeah, I think that the head of the CIA having an affair leaves him open to blackmail. Petraeus probably never expected the blackmail to come from the White House. It's looking more and ore like Petraeus told the White House he was going to tell the truth to congress and they tried to blackmail him with the affair and he said fuck you. Everything since then has been a smear campaign to try to discredit him.

CC, you've really been into the conspiracy theories lately... just mentioning. Benghazi, this...I'm sure there's a few I missed.

[CosmicCowboy]

The scandal-hit former CIA chief David Petraeus has failed to satisfy a congressional hearing into conflicting accounts of the attack in September on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Petraeus, in his first public outing since resigning from the CIA a week ago over an affair with his biographer, was smuggled into Congress for an early-morning hearing to avoid a media scrum.

Appearing before a closed-door hearing of the House intelligence committee, the affair surfaced only once when he was asked if it had had an impact on earlier testimony. He assured the committee it had not.

The rest of the 90-minute hearing was devoted to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on 11 September that left the ambassador and three other Americans dead.

Republicans in Congress have been campaigning relentlessly over discrepancies between the initial explanation provided by the Obama administration that blamed the attack on a spontaneous demonstration over a US-produced anti-Muslim film and a later explanation that blamed al-Qaida elements.

Some Republicans expressed suspicions that Petraeus's resignation had not been over the affair but to avoid a scheduled appearance on Thursday before the congressional hearing.

Although he is no longer CIA chief, he was asked to give evidence anyway.
The chairman of the House homeland security committee, Peter King, said that Petraeus did not appear to be disconcerted by the loss of the CIA job and the revelations about the affair. The hearing had been cordial and Petraeus had been professional, knowledgeable and strong but overall it had been awkward.

"I consider him a friend which makes the questioning tough, to be honest with you," King said. "It's a lot easier when you dislike the guy."

A large number of journalists gathered outside the corridor close to the hearing in hopes of snatching an interview with Petraeus, but congressional officials took him through a back entrance.

The hearing was held in an extra-secure location several floors below ground level.

The main discussion at the hearing was over talking points, compiled by the intelligence agencies, that the Obama administration gave to its UN ambassador Susan Rice ahead of a series of media interviews in September blaming demonstrators.

King said: "It is still not clear how the final talking points emerged. He [Petraues] said it went through a long process involving many agencies including the Justice Department and including the State Department.

"No one knows yet who came up with final version of the talking points other than to say the original talking points prepared by CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out."

King saw a contradiction between the account Petraeus had given to an earlier House hearing and the one he was giving now.

"His testimony was he told us that from the start it was a terrorist attack. I told him that was not my direct recollection. The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and not that it was a terrorist attack."

Asked if the affair had come up, King said: "Only in answer to one question when he was asked at the start if it had an impact on his testimony and he said 'No'."

King, summing up the Benghazi attack and the conflicting talking points, said it was all "still very vague". He added that he was satisfied the "ultimate conclusion" reached by Petreaus, that the attack had been linked to al-Qaida, but "honestly disagreed with his recollection" of his earlier explanations.

[RandomGuy]

And yeah, I think that the head of the CIA having an affair leaves him open to blackmail. Petraeus probably never expected the blackmail to come from the White House. It's looking more and ore like Petraeus told the White House he was going to tell the truth to congress and they tried to blackmail him with the affair and he said fuck you. Everything since then has been a smear campaign to try to discredit him.

wow.

Feel free to provide proof of that any time.

You say shit like that and I start having flashbacks to debunking "pull it" and why the moon landings weren't faked.

Next thing you will try saying is "Of course there isn't any proof of this, they covered it up".

GMAFB.

[ChumpDumper]

Republicans not satisfied?

Wow!

[CosmicCowboy]

Chump not satisfied!

Wow!

[ChumpDumper]

Conspiracy nut pusses out!

Wow!

[George Gervin's Afro]

so everybody's stories are lining up.... and the GOP still isn't convinced.... maybe, just maybe ..there wasn't a cover up.... just sayin

[CosmicCowboy]

wow.

Feel free to provide proof of that any time.

You say shit like that and I start having flashbacks to debunking "pull it" and why the moon landings weren't faked.

Next thing you will try saying is "Of course there isn't any proof of this, they covered it up".

GMAFB.

Of course I can't provide proof I am right, just like you can't provide proof that I am wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

so everybody's stories are lining up.... and the GOP still isn't convinced.... maybe, just maybe ..there wasn't a cover up.... just sayin

Huh? Stories lining up? CIA just said they reported it as an Al Quaeda related terrorist attack from DAY ONE. How is that lining up?

[boutons_deux]

VERY old. bitter, senile white guy, 5-plane-crash McLiar, getting "free stuff" from his wealthy Stepford wife, still butt hurt over 2008

Maddow: McCain ‘the engine driving the crazy’ on Benghazi conspiracy theories

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/16/maddow-mccain-the-engine-driving-the-crazy-on-benghazi-conspiracy-theories/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[ChumpDumper]

Why would anyone think that story would be maintained as a lie?

[CosmicCowboy]

Politics, Chumpy. kick all the bad revelations past the election. I never said Obama was dumb.

[boutons_deux]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/phoenix030405/Creations2/benghazicream.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Politics, Chumpy. kick all the bad revelations past the election. I never said Obama was dumb.Running that kind of risk over something no one really cared about anyway with regards to the election makes no sense whatsoever.

Your conspiracy doesn't pass the smell test.

[CosmicCowboy]

From NBC: (not exactly red team)

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15216937-petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack?lite


House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, R-N.Y. told reporters Friday after Petraeus testified that the initial “talking points” from the Obama administration to prepare officials for what they should say publicly in the first days after the attack had been changed to delete references to any al Qaida involvement in the event.



King said he and his colleagues now needed to hear testimony from officials in the State Department, the Defense Department “and also people at the White House – to see if anyone at the White House changed the talking points.”

[LnGrrrR]

Of course I can't provide proof I am right, just like you can't provide proof that I am wrong.

I own an invisible pony. Prove me wrong!

[ChumpDumper]

Republicans need more!

Wow!

[boutons_deux]

Politics, Chumpy. kick all the bad revelations past the election. I never said Obama was dumb.

old white male Repugs trying to distract from how badly the Dems beat their lying butts, while ramping up the rousing of their ignorant, racist rabble base, instead actually doing SERIOUS Congressional work, proving non-stop that the Repugs don't give a flying fuck about governing, only about politicking.

[CosmicCowboy]

I own an invisible pony. Prove me wrong!

Seriously, though...don't you think it's kind of stupid to demand that a mechanical contractor in San Antonio give him secret details of the inner workings of the White House? I'm entitled to my opinion and you and he are entitled to yours.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Chumpy...you seem to think you are pretty smart....soooo 10 days after the ambassador was killed did you still think it was just a protest over a stupid video that went bad?

[Winehole23]

cool story. who needs evidence when you can assume whatever you want?

[LnGrrrR]

Seriously, though...don't you think it's kind of stupid to demand that a mechanical contractor in San Antonio give him secret details of the inner workings of the White House? I'm entitled to my opinion and you and he are entitled to yours.

Huh? I must have missed this part of the story...

[CosmicCowboy]

cool story. who needs evidence when you can assume whatever you want?

Why should they tell the truth when the White House can lie and get away with it? I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story...

[boutons_deux]

"I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story..."

maybe because you and your ilk haven't proved WH is lying?

[Winehole23]

Condi Rice did, and does. She's certainly no blue teamer.

[CosmicCowboy]

"I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story..."

maybe because you and your ilk haven't proved WH is lying?




Sure I can. Ten days after the ambassador was killed the White House was still claiming it was a protest over the video gone bad and not a terrorist act. They clearly knew that from their own briefing from the CIA that that was a lie.

[CosmicCowboy]

"I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story..."

maybe because you and your ilk haven't proved WH is lying?




Are you saying that you still believe that the ambassador was killed when a protest over a video escalated to violence by a few extremists?

[boutons_deux]

Are you saying that you still believe that the ambassador was killed when a protest over a video escalated to violence by a few extremists?

no

[CosmicCowboy]

no

Are you saying that ten days after the attack the White House still didn't know it was a terrorist attack?

[ChumpDumper]

So Chumpy...you seem to think you are pretty smart....soooo 10 days after the ambassador was killed did you still think it was just a protest over a stupid video that went bad?I always suspected it was planned given the date, but people kill people in the middle east for much less, spontaneously or otherwise.

I still don't understand what you think was to be gained from outright lying about whether it was planned then covering up that lie per your conspiracy theory.

[ChumpDumper]

Why should they tell the truth when the White House can lie and get away with it? I can't believe you blue teamers still believe their story...Why would they lie and cover up something that made no difference in the election whatsoever?

You never explained that part of the conspiracy.

[CosmicCowboy]

I always suspected it was planned given the date, but people kill people in the middle east for much less, spontaneously or otherwise.

I still don't understand what you think was to be gained from outright lying about whether it was planned then covering up that lie per your conspiracy theory.

You are being intentionally obtuse when logic discredits blue team. The day that the ambassador was killed Obama was on TV saying he killed Bin Laden and had Al Quaeda "on the run". Admitting that Al Quaeda killed the Libyan ambassador in a planned attack on US soil put the outright lie to that claim.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why would they lie and cover up something that made no difference in the election whatsoever?

You never explained that part of the conspiracy.

How do you know it wouldn't have made a difference in the election? It wasn't like the election was a complete blowout.

[ChumpDumper]

You are being intentionally obtuse when logic discredits blue team. The day that the ambassador was killed Obama was on TV saying he killed Bin Laden and had Al Quaeda "on the run". Admitting that Al Quaeda killed the Libyan ambassador in a planned attack on US soil put the outright lie to that claim.Bin Laden was still dead.

Al Qaeda was still on the run.

Romney was going to lose regardless.

[ChumpDumper]

How do you know it wouldn't have made a difference in the election? It wasn't like the election was a complete blowout.Electorally speaking, it was a landslide by red team's own metrics.

I do applaud your final descent into truther level conspiracy mongering.

Dude was killed by Muslims. That's all people care about. Turns out they didn't care as much as you hoped they would.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, though...don't you think it's kind of stupid to demand that a mechanical contractor in San Antonio give him secret details of the inner workings of the White House? I'm entitled to my opinion and you and he are entitled to yours.

Just as Cosmored is entitled to his opinion about moon landings.

Wouldn't you prefer to base your opinions on things that have a bit more evidence to support them than partisan innuendo?

Or is that all that is needed these days for you?

You really want to look like some nutty conspiracy dork, that is your business, I guess. Just don't be butthurt when you get lumped in with the twoofers. Well meant and freely given.

[CosmicCowboy]

Electorally speaking, it was a landslide by red team's own metrics.

I do applaud your final descent into truther level conspiracy mongering.

Dude was killed by Muslims. That's all people care about. Turns out they didn't care as much as you hoped they would.

Electorally? Shit chump. Swing states can swing. That's why they are called that. If Obama had had to spend the last month explaining why he let an unprotected ambassador get killed after he asked for more protecting instead of being able to spend the last month demonizing rich people a few of those swing states could have swung differently.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just as Cosmored is entitled to his opinion about moon landings.

Wouldn't you prefer to base your opinions on things that have a bit more evidence to support them than partisan innuendo?

Or is that all that is needed these days for you?

You really want to look like some nutty conspiracy dork, that is your business, I guess. Just don't be butthurt when you get lumped in with the twoofers. Well meant and freely given.

Uhhhhh...I don't see Congress holding closed door hearings on Cosmoreds theory on moon landings...it appears they are holding hearings on the Benghazi coverup. Hardly a twoofer issue.

[ChumpDumper]

Electorally? Shit chump. Swing states can swing. That's why they are called that. If Obama had had to spend the last month explaining why he let an unprotected ambassador get killed after he asked for more protecting instead of being able to spend the last month demonizing rich people a few of those swing states could have swung differently.Well, at least we know why you are so inclined to make up conspiracy theories.

So if Petraeus says the talking points were not changed for political purposes in his testimony, do you believe him?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Uhhhhh...I don't see Congress holding closed door hearings on Cosmoreds theory on moon landings...it appears they are holding hearings on the Benghazi coverup. Hardly a twoofer issue.Does calling it a coverup make you think everyone else thinks its a coverup?

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, at least we know why you are so inclined to make up conspiracy theories.

So if Petraeus says the talking points were not changed for political purposes in his testimony, do you believe him?

Yes or no.

Petraeus didn't say that mr. strawman.

[clambake]

i think the ambassadors killing was an elaborate scheme to win romney the election.

i think its also clear that israel is shooting rockets at themselves......from the moon.

[ChumpDumper]

Petraeus didn't say that mr. strawman.Are you sure he didn't say that, Mr. Twoofer?

[CosmicCowboy]

Does calling it a coverup make you think everyone else thinks its a coverup?

What word would you prefer? Incompetent?

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you sure he didn't say that, Mr. Twoofer?

If he said it it wasn't reported Mr. Strawman.

[ChumpDumper]

If he said it it wasn't reported Mr. Strawman.Are you sure it wasn't reported, Mr. Tinfoil Hat?

[ChumpDumper]

What word would you prefer? Incompetent?It's not invasion of Iraq incompetence, but sure. They made an erroneous call with all the necessary caveats. Conspiracy nuts like you couldn't possibly take that as a possibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you sure it wasn't reported, Mr. Tinfoil Hat?

If it was said then CNN, NBC, and CBS didn't report it. Did you and Boutons blogs get the scoop?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not invasion of Iraq incompetence, but sure. They made an erroneous call with all the necessary caveats. Conspiracy nuts like you couldn't possibly take that as a possibility.

LOL I'm hardly a conspiracy nut, but I firmly believe that Obama is not above lying directly to the face of the public if it benefits him politically. All he had to do was convince the stupidest 51%.

[ChumpDumper]

If it was said then CNN, NBC, and CBS didn't report it. Did you and Boutons blogs get the scoop?Are those the only major news outlets in the world?

[ChumpDumper]

LOL I'm hardly a conspiracy nutOf course you are
but I firmly believe that Obama is not above lying directly to the face of the public if it benefits him politically. All he had to do was convince the stupidest 51%.So you are part of the stupidest 51% when your guy wins. :tu

[CosmicCowboy]

Are those the only major news outlets in the world?

They are definitely blue team outlets. If they had something that bolstered Obama they would definitely report it.

[ChumpDumper]

They are definitely blue team outlets. If they had something that bolstered Obama they would definitely report it.It's hilarious that you can't answer simple yes or no questions.

Classic twooferism.

The correct answer is "no."

[CosmicCowboy]

What yes or no question?

It's hilarious that you are such a little straw bitch.

[ChumpDumper]

What yes or no question?:lmao

[boutons_deux]

"In the Line of Booty?" 10 Funniest Headlines from the Petraeus Sex Scandal
http://www.alternet.org/files/screen_shot_2012-11-16_at_12.21.23_pm_1.png

http://www.alternet.org/line-booty-10-funniest-headlines-petraeus-sex-scandal

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/screen_shot_2012-11-16_at_2.13.11_pm.png

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/files/screen_shot_2012-11-16_at_1.39.52_pm.png

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/files/screen_shot_2012-11-16_at_2.24.44_pm.png

[RandomGuy]

Uhhhhh...I don't see Congress holding closed door hearings on Cosmoreds theory on moon landings...it appears they are holding hearings on the Benghazi coverup. Hardly a twoofer issue.

I have, sadly, little doubt that if the Republicans in the House of Representatives thought there was some political advantage in having closed door hearings on whether or not the moon landings were faked, they would do so.

You calling it a "coverup" doesn't make it so, any more than NASA "covered up" the hoaxed landings.

Is it possible to have a Congressional hearing on something and that topic not be a "coverup"?

If you like, I can provide a sad, sad list of congressional hearings that did nothing, learned nothing, but were very obviously crassly politically motivated bullshit by one party or another, seeking some sort of publicity, or fake outrage. How would I be able to tell the difference between a "coverup" and this kind of hearing?

[CosmicCowboy]

I have, sadly, little doubt that if the Republicans in the House of Representatives thought there was some political advantage in having closed door hearings on whether or not the moon landings were faked, they would do so.

You calling it a "coverup" doesn't make it so, any more than NASA "covered up" the hoaxed landings.

Is it possible to have a Congressional hearing on something and that topic not be a "coverup"?

If you like, I can provide a sad, sad list of congressional hearings that did nothing, learned nothing, but were very obviously crassly politically motivated bullshit by one party or another, seeking some sort of publicity, or fake outrage. How would I be able to tell the difference between a "coverup" and this kind of hearing?

Well, we already know that the White House knew on day one it was a terrorist attack by an Al Quaeda affiliate. What would you call almost 2 weeks of "it was a spontaneous demonstration about the movie"? Seriously. Take your blue glasses off for a minute.

[RandomGuy]

Well, we already know that the White House knew on day one it was a terrorist attack by an Al Quaeda affiliate. What would you call almost 2 weeks of "it was a spontaneous demonstration about the movie"? Seriously. Take your blue glasses off for a minute.

Take your red glasses off.

I would not expect any administration to have all the information on day one.

I would expect a lot of conflicting intel.

I would expect an administration of either party to be more than a little hesitant to state something as "certain" in such an environment.

"knowing" and being able to support that with solid information are two separate things. I would expect a responsible government to be a bit leery of revealing too much that might compromise classified sources.

I really don't give a squirt of shit if it took them a couple of weeks or even a month to sort it out, given the situation on the ground in Libya at the moment.

I have little doubt that if the Obama administration had gotten everything out and all the initial reports turned out 100% right, people like you would be bitching about endangering intelligence sources by revealing too much.

[CosmicCowboy]

Take your red glasses off.

I would not expect any administration to have all the information on day one.

I would expect a lot of conflicting intel.

I would expect an administration of either party to be more than a little hesitant to state something as "certain" in such an environment.

"knowing" and being able to support that with solid information are two separate things. I would expect a responsible government to be a bit leery of revealing too much that might compromise classified sources.

I really don't give a squirt of shit if it took them a couple of weeks or even a month to sort it out, given the situation on the ground in Libya at the moment.

I have little doubt that if the Obama administration had gotten everything out and all the initial reports turned out 100% right, people like you would be bitching about endangering intelligence sources by revealing too much.

:lmao

You are right. first, second day is completely OK to say "no comment, we are still gathering the facts". That's not what they said. They planned and planted a false narrative that they stuck to till the bitter end (almost two weeks later) when it blew into a million pieces. That's not red lens interpretation, that's clear lens interpretation.

[HI-FI]

:lmao

You are right. first, second day is completely OK to say "no comment, we are still gathering the facts". That's not what they said. They planned and planted a false narrative that they stuck to till the bitter end (almost two weeks later) when it blew into a million pieces. That's not red lens interpretation, that's clear lens interpretation.
most likely Obama and his cohorts were doing everything not to blow the election. It's all common sense. They got the major players to buy into a stupid spontaneous theory even when they knew better. It's sad to see the usual partisans swallowing every drop of Obama jizz but that's per par around here. I do wonder though if there was something else going on in Benghazi, like rumors of another CIA secret prison etc...That would be real interesting, but I doubt most of the media gives a shit.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

You are right. first, second day is completely OK to say "no comment, we are still gathering the facts". That's not what they said. They planned and planted a false narrative that they stuck to till the bitter end (almost two weeks later) when it blew into a million pieces. That's not red lens interpretation, that's clear lens interpretation.Sorry, that's pure twoofer revisionism.

You're to emotionally committed now to even answer a simple question about major media outlets You deserve nothing but ridicule.

[Wild Cobra]

Why would anyone think that story would be maintained as a lie?
Apparently, BHO and Susan rice did...

[CosmicCowboy]

Sorry, that's pure twoofer revisionism.

You're to emotionally committed now to even answer a simple question about major media outlets You deserve nothing but ridicule.

Twoofer revisionism? :lmao facts are facts.

And you can GFY and your major media outlet question...I answered it. The blue ones didn't cover it so it didn't happen.

Me ridicule? LMAO You pathetic piece of internet shit. I have total disdain for your internet persona.

[ChumpDumper]

Apparently, BHO and Susan rice did...You believe that.

That's why you aren't respected much around here.

[ChumpDumper]

Twoofer revisionism? :lmao facts are facts.You left out very important facts to fit your narrative.

Twoofer style.


And you can GFY and your major media outlet question...I answered it. The blue ones didn't cover it so it didn't happen.You ignored actual major news sources so your bias could be confirmed.

Twoofer style.


Me ridicule? LMAO You pathetic piece of internet shit. I have total disdain for you internet persona.Angry ad hominem when called out.

Twoofer style.

[CosmicCowboy]

LMAO

post your fucking sources bitch. Prove your premise that Petraeus said things that exonerated Obama that wasn't reported by the mainstream media.

BTW I'm not going to respond tonight because unlike you I actually have a real life outside the internet and am about to cruise.

[Wild Cobra]

LMAO

post your fucking sources bitch. Prove your premise that Petraeus said things that exonerated Obama that wasn't reported by the mainstream media.
He won't be able to.

I have few facts, heard plenty of things. It appears to me, they were trying to blackmail Petraeus to stay quiet, and it backfired. Why else was this known affair so quiet for so long?

[ChumpDumper]

LMAO

post your fucking sources bitch. Prove your premise that Petraeus said things that exonerated Obama that wasn't reported by the mainstream media.It was reported by the mainstream media.

It's not my job to hold your hand and tell you what a major media outlet is. Be a big girl and find it yourself. It was pathetically easy.

[ChumpDumper]

I have few facts:lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol
How many do you have?

[ChumpDumper]

How many do you have?I don't have the tin foil hats you and CC have donned.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have the tin foil hats you and CC have donned.
Mine is made of Hastalloy. Not tin. Why can't you get your facts strait?

[ChumpDumper]

Mine is made of Hastalloy. Not tin. Why can't you get your facts strait?Why can't you spell?

But you roll with your Hastalloy foil hat. :lol

[clambake]

this thread delivers.

[ChumpDumper]

It's should be surprising that our newly minuted conspiracy theorist is unable to find a story that was produced by one of the most prominent news sources in the world and prominently linked in one of the more popular internet portals in the world.

But then again, he doesn't believe the news source is a major one.

[clambake]

there's only one major news source, and they got cowboy workin overtime.

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't you spell?

But you roll with your Hastalloy foil hat. :lol
Maybe you should look up the differences in properties between tin and hastalloy.

[ChumpDumper]

http://i54.twitgoo.com/sqp0ll.jpg

[clambake]

lol

[LnGrrrR]

You are being intentionally obtuse when logic discredits blue team. The day that the ambassador was killed Obama was on TV saying he killed Bin Laden and had Al Quaeda "on the run". Admitting that Al Quaeda killed the Libyan ambassador in a planned attack on US soil put the outright lie to that claim.So Benghazi means Osama wasn't killed, and that al Qaeda is stronger than ever?

[LnGrrrR]

LMAOpost your fucking sources bitch. Prove your premise that Petraeus said things that exonerated Obama that wasn't reported by the mainstream media.BTW I'm not going to respond tonight because unlike you I actually have a real life outside the internet and am about to cruise.I'm pretty sure "I have a real life!" smack automatically disqualifies you from winning an argument.

[boutons_deux]

Fox + Repugs spend the next 4 years lying about Rice/Obama/Petraeus conspiracy to lie about Benghazi, including impeaching Obama, and generally repeating the Clinton harassment the WH with endless bullshit and non-stop slander and obstructionism.

And assholes here, where's Yoni when we really need proof of a conspiracy?, suckered by Fox + Repug, will run with the conspiracy.

[Nbadan]

this whole Benghazi ridiculousness reminds me of Sam Kinison..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfgrj_62-Y



The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies prepared unclassified talking points on the attack for members of Congress, and in them the references to Qaeda affiliates were changed to the less specific “extremists” to avoid revealing to insurgents that American intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on their electronic communications.


David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

[Wild Cobra]

Dan.

Anyone with a gram on intelligence already knows the administration lied, and waited till after the election to boot Petraeas out.

[ChumpDumper]

Dan.

Anyone with a gram on intelligence already knows the administration lied, and waited till after the election to boot Petraeas out.Petreaus would say that himself if he was as angry as all you conspiracy nuts say he is.

[ploto]

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

But, but, now Petraeus won't testify....

Why do people even expect that the government should tell us all they suspect at the time. Even the local police know not to do that.

[Winehole23]

Petraeus did testify, WC. Do you dislike what he said?

[ploto]

...waited till after the election to boot Petraeas out.

A bunch of Republicans are the ones who knew about his affair for some time. Why did they not come forward with the information? Oh yeah, there was talk among Republicans of running Petraeus in 2016.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ "not wanting to tip them off that we knew they did it"

THE GROUP PUBLICLY CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE ATTACK.

They expected us to know they did it because they TOLD us.

i can'y believe y'all are falling for that excuse.

[Wild Cobra]

Petraeus did testify, WC. Do you dislike what he said?
I knew he was going to testify. We don't know everything he said. It was behind closed doors. It's still obvious Rice lied with what was released. They edit out sensitive information and Rice makes the cause to be other than what it is. No way she could have thought she wasn't making it up.

[Winehole23]

:lmao @ "not wanting to tip them off that we knew they did it"

THE GROUP PUBLICLY CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE ATTACK.

They expected us to know they did it because they TOLD us.

i can'y believe y'all are falling for that excuse.I never denied the administration's spin was exactly that and self serving to boot, but you went over to full-throated partisan tin hattery. There was no conspiracy, just run of the mill SNAFU.

[Winehole23]

if someone disbelieves you, CC, it doesn't mean they go whole hog for whatever your putative political adversaries say. believe it or not, the blade of skepsis can be wielded in any direction.

[Winehole23]

hence there is nothing contradictory by saying that WH spin on Benghazi was self-serving, and that right-wing umbrage taking is also full of shit and politically motivated.

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao @ "not wanting to tip them off that we knew they did it"

THE GROUP PUBLICLY CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE ATTACK.

They expected us to know they did it because they TOLD us.

i can'y believe y'all are falling for that excuse.

Terrorists claim credit for nearly any successful attack. Heck, if I spilled my coffee at the local Starbucks they'd probably try to claim that as a "terror attack".

[boutons_deux]

"WH spin on Benghazi"

Fox and Repugs peddle that LIE, why do you?

[Winehole23]

political calculations enter into public announcements. surely you will agree that this is so for Republican administrations, no?

[Winehole23]

Terrorists claim credit for nearly any successful attack. Heck, if I spilled my coffee at the local Starbucks they'd probably try to claim that as a "terror attack".Takes terrorists at their word, distrusts the US president. How amusing.

[EVAY]

I believe that the CIA assumed it was a terrorist attack because they knew damn well they were holding members of a terrorist group in an annex to the embassy. That they (the CIA) were doing so in direct contravention of a Presidential directive telling them to do no such thing since January of 2009 was, I believe, a good reason for them to go along with a narrative that said 'we aren't sure who did this', which clearly aided the Obama administration's claim before the election of having gutted Al Quaida.

The fact is, what I believe is not proof any damn thing in either direction. A similar fact is that anyone who wants to make this into a conspiracy involving Petraeus' testimony or what was in the testimony or why he had to resign has no more than 'beliefs' to support their position.

Remember when the first conspiracy was that Petreaus had to resign because they were afraid of what he would say under oath? Now that he has testified under oath, the conspiracists don't seem to want to acknowledge that claim to have been debunked, so there is a 'moving right along' conspiracy that it was something else. Now Rep. Peter King of New York is saying that Petraeus is saying something different now than he was at first. Petraeus is saying he isn't. So who do you want to believe?

Give it up, already.

[CosmicCowboy]

political calculations enter into public announcements. surely you will agree that this is so for Republican administrations, no?

Absolutely!

I don't believe either side.

That's why I find it so sad that I everyone in here is so quick to believe that bullshit.

[spursncowboys]

I never denied the administration's spin was exactly that and self serving to boot, but you went over to full-throated partisan tin hattery. There was no conspiracy, just run of the mill SNAFU.

So this is run of the mill spin? Would you put a level of run of the mill to it? Would you consider it unethical? If BHO did watch them die on video, would that change it to not an average spin job?

Is this a cover-up, lack of command and control on the President's part or extreme incompetence?

[Stringer_Bell]

Personally, on a personal basis, I have a personal belief that the Obama Administration had sooooo much more to gain from coming out and saying "Hey guys, Al Qaeda and its terrorist buddies attacked our people cuz they hate the fact we merc'd Osama bin Hidin'. They're pissed cuz I, da President, know how to find and kill the rest of them. Elect me cuz it's not a smart idea to change horses mid-stream. I'm a strong war President, yeahhhhhhhhh!!!"

All the Benghazi conspiracy theorists need to figure out if they're pissed that the White House didn't want to expose the secret prisons or if they're pissed off because they think the delay in information (of which they really have no business knowing) actually had an affect on the election despite the CLEAR fact that the American electorate couldn't have given two shits about it anyway. And while ya'll try to figure out what is worse, choke on my black meat...honkeys.

[ChumpDumper]

So this is run of the mill spin? Would you put a level of run of the mill to it? Would you consider it unethical? If BHO did watch them die on video, would that change it to not an average spin job?

Is this a cover-up, lack of command and control on the President's part or extreme incompetence?Got fitted for your hat, I see.

[boutons_deux]

Fox Covers Up Acknowledgement That Petraeus Was OK With Benghazi Talking Points

Fox News is whitewashing Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) acknowledgment that the Central Intelligence Agency approved the talking points that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for an early assessment of the September 11 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.


For two months, Fox has sought to scandalize Rice's September 16 interviews on the major Sunday news shows. During those interviews, Rice said that an investigation into the Benghazi attack was under way but that the current assessment of the intelligence community was that the attack was a reaction to a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was inspired by a controversial anti-Islamic film.


On Friday, Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of the CIA, offered testimony before a closed congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.


In an interview immediately after that hearing explaining what Petraeus said, King said that the CIA initially wrote in its assessment that attack was connected to an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, but that point was removed during a standard review by the broader intelligence community.


King said that Petraeus testified that he was not upset that the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from the intelligence assessment before it was made public. In fact, King made clear that the CIA OK'd the assessment after the reference to Al Qaeda was removed:

But when Fox interviewed King, anchor Megyn Kelly made no reference to King's earlier statement making clear that Petraeus was not upset that the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from the assessment before it was made public, or that the CIA OK'd the assessment Rice relied upon.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/16/fox-covers-up-acknowledgement-that-petraeus-was/191439

[Winehole23]

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video) (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421874n), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.


Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.


However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.


"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.


An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/

[ChumpDumper]

lol conspiracy

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/
I see.

But there was strong enough evidence to base the attack on a cartoon...

[ChumpDumper]

I see.

But there was strong enough evidence to base the attack on a cartoon...So now you know absolutely nothing about classified information.

Typical.

[Winehole23]

LOL I'm hardly a conspiracy nut...don't sell yourself short CC, you're a tremendous conspiracy nut. you're without much doubt at all ST's top wrangler on Benghazi.

[Th'Pusher]

don't sell yourself short CC, you're a tremendous conspiracy nut. you're without much doubt at all ST's top wrangler on Benghazi.
Will CC double down or fade to black?

[Winehole23]

doubles down, probably. dude is stubborn . . .

[ChumpDumper]

He's got to keep the dream alive.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seems pretty clear to me...


The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

[Winehole23]

what seems clear?

[Th'Pusher]

Seems pretty clear to me...
So you wanted her to digress from the intelligence approved talking points and start divulging classified information on Sunday morning talk shows?

[ChumpDumper]

Double-down it is. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

So you wanted her to digress from the intelligence approved talking points and start divulging classified information on Sunday morning talk shows?

No, I wanted her to say they didn't have enough information to discuss it at that time.

How do you explain Jay Carney TEN DAYS LATER still sticking by the original story?

[CosmicCowboy]

I really don't care to beat this dead horse at this time. The more info that comes out the more it looks like a political stall/coverup.

[ChumpDumper]

I really don't care to beat this dead horse at this time. The more info that comes out the more it looks like a political stall/coverup.Except the info that shows it isn't.

[Th'Pusher]

I really don't care to beat this dead horse at this time.
Thanks for your interest in the Fox News organization, but we're going in another direction at this time. Feel free to reapply in the future.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they took out the info because they didn't want the terrorists to know they were tracking them down. Although I doubt CC buys that story.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they took out the info because they didn't want the terrorists to know they were tracking them down. Although I doubt CC buys that story.

As I said previously, the terrorist's publicly claimed credit for the hit. They expected them to know. Are you claiming that US were using some kind of reverse psychology on them to make them think US didn't know they claimed responsibility for the hit and instead were going to drop the hammer of the Federal God on some stupid filmmaker in California? (which they did).

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, CC -- your conspiracy failboat has smash on the rocks of reality. You said Petraeus was being blackmailed and was going to expose Obama in his testimony.

You were wrong.

[Nbadan]

Source: TPM

McCain: ‘Surprised’ By Report That DNI Removed Terrorism References In Rice’s Benghazi Talking Points


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) released a statement on Tuesday in which he responded to reports that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) scrubbed references to Al-Qaeda from the unclassified talking points used by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice and others following the September attack in Benghazi.

McCain said the revelation runs counter to what he was told by intelligence officials during Senate hearings and serves as another reminder of why he and other Republicans are "suspicious" of the Obama administration's response to the attack.

The statement:

“I am somewhat surprised and frustrated to read reports that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was responsible for removing references to Al-Qaeda from the unclassified talking points about the Benghazi attack that Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used in the early days after September 11, 2012. I participated in hours of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week regarding the events in Benghazi, where senior intelligence officials were asked this very question, and all of them – including the Director of National Intelligence himself – told us that they did not know who made the changes. Now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. There are many other questions that remain unanswered. But this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so frustrated with, and suspicious of, the actions of this Administration when it comes to the Benghazi attack.”



Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-surprised-by-report-that-dni-removed-terrorism?ref=fpa

Later, when Senator McCain was advised that it was Tuesday, he remarked that he was surprised about that as well.

[Nbadan]

The Republicans’ new focus of attack in the faux “Benghazi-gate” scandal is Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, claiming that he lied about the source of changes to talking points on the Benghazi attack given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

Yesterday, a DNI spokesperson debunked accusations made by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other Republicans that the White House changed Rice’s Benghazi talking points, saying that it was the intelligence community that made the “substantive” changes to the talking points. Moreover, former CIA head David Petraeus and other top intelligence officials have said there was no politicization of the process and that the talking points were not altered to minimize the role of extremists but to reflect the best intelligence at the time.

McCain appeared to accept the new information but wondered why Clapper and other DNI officials did not provide this information during closed door hearings last week. And now that all their earlier attacks on Rice have fell apart, Republicans and conservative media figures are directing their attacks at Clapper, a George W. Bush appointee:


– BILL O’REILLY: Now it’s James Clapper, President Obama’s national security guy who is saying, “Oh, it’s me. I sent Rice out there and I took out all the al Qaeda stuff.” I’m not buying it. None of this adds up. … All right so there’s a lot of lying going on here.

[Wild Cobra]

It still doesn't matter who removed the reference Dan.

Susan Rice had no intelligence to implicate the YouTube video.

[ChumpDumper]

It still doesn't matter who removed the reference Dan.

Susan Rice had no intelligence to implicate the YouTube video.It's your conspiracy theories that don't matter.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sorry, CC -- your conspiracy failboat has smash on the rocks of reality. You said Petraeus was being blackmailed and was going to expose Obama in his testimony.

You were wrong.

Here we go with Bouchump lying again. I always said that could be a theory and never made a flat statement that I believed it to be the case. Just another Chump bullshit post.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hypothetical:

He was blackmailed with the affair scoop by the white house to doctor up a phony timeline showing it was impossible for anyone to have helped the guys in Libya.

He realized he was going to have to testify under oath to congress and realized the criminal implications if he lied and reconsidered and gave the White House a big "fuck you" and fessed up to the affair publicly.

Hell, he may actually testify voluntarily now. It's just the media saying he won't testify.

Here you go Bouchump. Please note the qualifier "hypothetical" to put it on the table for discusion. GFY.

[ChumpDumper]

And yeah, I think that the head of the CIA having an affair leaves him open to blackmail. Petraeus probably never expected the blackmail to come from the White House. It's looking more and ore like Petraeus told the White House he was going to tell the truth to congress and they tried to blackmail him with the affair and he said fuck you. Everything since then has been a smear campaign to try to discredit him.:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

That was still before his second testimony. His second testimony did not match his first testimony. How does chumpster explain this?

[ChumpDumper]

That was still before his second testimony. His second testimony did not match his first testimony. How does chumpster explain this?Someone changed your talking points.

[CosmicCowboy]

Someone changed your talking points.

Keep ankle biting, bitch. You are what you are. Glad I'm not you.

[ChumpDumper]

Keep ankle biting, bitch. You are what you are. Glad I'm not you.Keep the conspiracy alive, truther. You are what you are. Glad I'm not you.

[Wild Cobra]

ChumpDumber just doesn't know when to let go of an ankle.

[ChumpDumper]

Neither of you don't know when to let go of a failed conspiracy theory.

[Wild Cobra]

Neither of you don't know when to let go of a failed conspiracy theory.
What conspiracy?

I'm only saying the timing of the hammer falling is no accident.

[ChumpDumper]

What conspiracy?

I'm only saying the timing of the hammer falling is no accident.Yeah, that conspiracy.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, that conspiracy.
WTF...

You call that a conspiracy?

That's normal politics at work!

[ChumpDumper]

WTF...

You call that a conspiracy?

That's normal politics at work!Nah, it's something you made up to confirm your bias.

[ElNono]

remember det one time when F&F was going to cost barry the re-election? crofl

[Wild Cobra]

remember det one time when F&F was going to cost barry the re-election? crofl
It should have. Problem is, America has turned into a majority of idiots.