Reply With Quote
Nah, he had the final say changing the talking points in your fantasy.
Attempting to be butch now won't help you.
Nah, he had the final say changing the talking points in your fantasy.
So it wasn't a protest over a movie?
Why would anyone think that story would be maintained as a lie?
CC, you've really been into the conspiracy theories lately... just mentioning. Benghazi, this...I'm sure there's a few I missed.
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 su ions 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.
wow.
Feel free to provide proof of that any time.
You say 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.
Republicans not satisfied?
Wow!
Chump not satisfied!
Wow!
Conspiracy nut pusses out!
Wow!
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
Of course I can't provide proof I am right, just like you can't provide proof that I am wrong.
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?
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/2012/11/1...=Google+Reader
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.
From NBC: (not exactly red team)
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...zi-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.”
I own an invisible pony. Prove me wrong!
Republicans need more!
Wow!
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 about governing, only about politicking.
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 en led to my opinion and you and he are en led to yours.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
