Petraeus resigns

[JudynTX]

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

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...ing-pet/191383

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

[boutons_deux]

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

Panetta Orders Review of Ethics Training for Military Officers

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/16...813BAD1CF?f=21

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

[boutons_deux]

The Ultimate Guide To McCain’s Smear Campaign Against Susan Rice


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) launched an all-out assault 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, “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: “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 that CIA talking points on the Benghazi attack dated Sept. 15, or the day before Rice’s Sunday show appearances, stated 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. “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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 to be satisfied with letting 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, should the President nominate her.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...false-attacks/

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

[boutons_deux]

so she really a consul in FL ... Korea!
Petraeus scandal: Jill Kelley's South Korean link

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-...=Google+Reader

[Nbadan]

What a en 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/SB1000...412120776.html

Petraeus may have ed 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]

[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 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.

DUHHHHHH

[ChumpDumper]

DUHHHHHH

You didn't answer the question.

Use your words.

[CosmicCowboy]

[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.

[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

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 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/20...ya-statements/

[CosmicCowboy]

So it wasn't a straw man after all.

You said CHANGED IT PERSONALLY . Strawman