I won't even bother reading an O.P. that is more than a paragraph or two at the most. There is no reason for it. Lay out the highlights and supply a link (to someone who knows what the hell he/she is talking about).
BO`s Benghazi BS and Cover Up Far Worse Than Watergate
- Thread starter TeddyBallgame
- Start date
I won't even bother reading an O.P. that is more than a paragraph or two at the most. There is no reason for it. Lay out the highlights and supply a link (to someone who knows what the hell he/she is talking about).
All three of those sources/links you have posted are pre Petreaus' grilling on Friday.
Just as McCain has surendered on the issue and accepted the first hand facts, so should you..........
The following was also published pre the Friday admissions by petreaus.......
Let me see if I understand this. John McCain praises Petraeus as a great "hero" but the woman who followed his guidance is "not very bright" and "unqualified" to hold office. That makes no sense, even from a party that has defied logic all year long. If you're going to attack Susan Rice on Benghazi, you're going to have to attack Gen. Petraeus's CIA, too. Susan Rice wasn't in charge of any U.S. personnel in Benghazi. General Petraeus was.
Commentary: If Republicans Declare War on Susan Rice, They'll Have It | News | BET
Petraeus Changes His Benghazi Story
(just as Andy was discussing the post-testimony with Rohrabacher for those that don't read or hear to well) :lol:
Let us hear from Rush as he wipes off some of the B.S. :
Well, let's review some of the histoire. On September 14th, three days after the attack at Benghazi, Petraeus told members of Congress that the video was the problem, the video is what caused a protest, which led to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. Today, November 16th, so just a little over a month, it's being said for him that his September the 14th story, he's massaging that now and saying he meant or tried to convey on September 14th that it was terrorism, it was always terrorism. And I suspect the answer here lies in something Bill Kristol said on Fox earlier this week.
See, Kristol is the leader of the neocons. He knows these guys. Kristol said that somebody told him, Congress or somebody, that he ran into Petraeus at that original hearing, September 14th, and said, "What really happened?" Petraeus said, "You want the real version or you want our version?" And he said Petraeus said it's terrorism, there's no question, but we're saying it's the video. Kristol said something like this on Fox earlier this week. So therefore Kristol could confirm that it's on record, "Oh, yeah, Petraeus said back then that it was terrorism all the way, but he had to say something else."
But here's the other thing. Greta Van Susteren on her blog at Fox says: This is why I don't believe it. If that were true, if on September 14th he told members of Congress that it was the video that was the problem and then today he's saying he's always thought it was terrorism, if that's true, that he was committed to telling the American people the truth on September 14th, and it was terrorism, it was Al-Qaeda, why didn't he correct the false story much before today? Why wait until today? He could have issued a public statement or even made a private call to friends in the media, but he let it survive for over a month that his interpretation was the video. But if he's now saying, no, no, no, first day out of the box it was terrorism, Greta is saying, if that's true, why didn't he later correct the false story before now?
Petraeus Changes His Benghazi Story - The Rush Limbaugh Show
Might as well...
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday that the CIA believes the Benghazi attacks were conducted by terrorists, not a spontaneous demonstration, according to lawmakers who provided accounts of the closed hearing before Congress.
Appearing on Capitol Hill for the first time since the scandal that ended his career at the intelligence agency, Petraeus tried to explain the discrepancy in Obama administration officials’ initial public statements about the cause of the attacks.
David Petraeus: CIA believed Benghazi was a terrorist attack - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com
(just as Andy was discussing the post-testimony with Rohrabacher for those that don't read or hear to well) :lol:
Let us hear from Rush as he wipes off some of the B.S. :
Well, let's review some of the histoire. On September 14th, three days after the attack at Benghazi, Petraeus told members of Congress that the video was the problem, the video is what caused a protest, which led to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. Today, November 16th, so just a little over a month, it's being said for him that his September the 14th story, he's massaging that now and saying he meant or tried to convey on September 14th that it was terrorism, it was always terrorism. And I suspect the answer here lies in something Bill Kristol said on Fox earlier this week.
See, Kristol is the leader of the neocons. He knows these guys. Kristol said that somebody told him, Congress or somebody, that he ran into Petraeus at that original hearing, September 14th, and said, "What really happened?" Petraeus said, "You want the real version or you want our version?" And he said Petraeus said it's terrorism, there's no question, but we're saying it's the video. Kristol said something like this on Fox earlier this week. So therefore Kristol could confirm that it's on record, "Oh, yeah, Petraeus said back then that it was terrorism all the way, but he had to say something else."
But here's the other thing. Greta Van Susteren on her blog at Fox says: This is why I don't believe it. If that were true, if on September 14th he told members of Congress that it was the video that was the problem and then today he's saying he's always thought it was terrorism, if that's true, that he was committed to telling the American people the truth on September 14th, and it was terrorism, it was Al-Qaeda, why didn't he correct the false story much before today? Why wait until today? He could have issued a public statement or even made a private call to friends in the media, but he let it survive for over a month that his interpretation was the video. But if he's now saying, no, no, no, first day out of the box it was terrorism, Greta is saying, if that's true, why didn't he later correct the false story before now?
Petraeus Changes His Benghazi Story - The Rush Limbaugh Show
Might as well...
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday that the CIA believes the Benghazi attacks were conducted by terrorists, not a spontaneous demonstration, according to lawmakers who provided accounts of the closed hearing before Congress.
Appearing on Capitol Hill for the first time since the scandal that ended his career at the intelligence agency, Petraeus tried to explain the discrepancy in Obama administration officials’ initial public statements about the cause of the attacks.
David Petraeus: CIA believed Benghazi was a terrorist attack - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com
Last edited:
Rachel Maddow has more credibility than Faux or Flush Limpbaugh. And it looks like the wrong wing is gonna lost this argument just like they lose all else.
Yes, and here's a perfect example of why.
Fox and Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc., are all masters at 'omission'. That is leaving out 'facts' they don't agree with. They don't even mention certain things which give the illusion they never happened, if all you do is read or listen to them..................
Fox News is whitewashing Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) acknowledgment that the CIA approved the talking points that were used by Susan Rice for an early assessment of the September 11 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.
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:
Yeah, they said, "OK for it to go."
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.
King's comments are a fatal blow to the phony controversy over Rice's interviews
Silence is the only way Fox can keep its scandal alive.
Fox Covers Up Acknowledgement That Petraeus Was OK With Benghazi Talking Points | Blog | Media Matters for America
The ‘Hybrid View’ of Benghazi
The Washington Post reports that “the CIA and other intelligence analystshave settled on what amounts to a hybrid view” of September 11, 2012, “suggesting that the Cairo protest sparked militants in Libya, who quickly mobilized an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.”
What the Post doesn’t say is that the Cairo protest was itself an al Qaeda-infused, if not outright orchestrated, event.
The “hybrid” explanation is a compromise, of sorts, between two competing narratives. The first suggested that a protest against an anti-Islam film in Benghazi led to a “spontaneous” assault on the US consulate there. We know that version isn’t true because there never was any protest in Benghazi. The second narrative points to a terrorist attack. The weaponry involved in the assault, the sophistication of the operation and, most importantly, the involvement of al Qaeda-linked terrorists all buttress this second version.
While there was no film protest in Benghazi, however, there are reasons to suspect that the events in Egypt and Libya on Sept. 11 are linked. But that link isn’t an anti-Islam film. They are linked by the fact that known al Qaeda-affiliated individuals were directly involved in both.
more
The
The Washington Post reports that “the CIA and other intelligence analystshave settled on what amounts to a hybrid view” of September 11, 2012, “suggesting that the Cairo protest sparked militants in Libya, who quickly mobilized an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.”
What the Post doesn’t say is that the Cairo protest was itself an al Qaeda-infused, if not outright orchestrated, event.
The “hybrid” explanation is a compromise, of sorts, between two competing narratives. The first suggested that a protest against an anti-Islam film in Benghazi led to a “spontaneous” assault on the US consulate there. We know that version isn’t true because there never was any protest in Benghazi. The second narrative points to a terrorist attack. The weaponry involved in the assault, the sophistication of the operation and, most importantly, the involvement of al Qaeda-linked terrorists all buttress this second version.
While there was no film protest in Benghazi, however, there are reasons to suspect that the events in Egypt and Libya on Sept. 11 are linked. But that link isn’t an anti-Islam film. They are linked by the fact that known al Qaeda-affiliated individuals were directly involved in both.
more
The
White House denies terror delete
The White House yesterday denied it edited talking points about the terrorist attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya — contradicting remarks made a day earlier by disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
more
White House denies editing talking points on Benghazi attack, contradicting Petraeus - NYPOST.com
The White House yesterday denied it edited talking points about the terrorist attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya — contradicting remarks made a day earlier by disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
more
White House denies editing talking points on Benghazi attack, contradicting Petraeus - NYPOST.com
On Front Page, NYT's Mark Landler Shields 'Stand-in...Bystander' Susan Rice From Benghazi Blame
On Sunday's front page, New York Times reporter Mark Landler took the heat off United Nations ambassador Susan ("stand-in...bystander") Rice for her media tour spreading false statements about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were murdered by terrorists. Rice went on the Sunday shows after the terrorist attack and falsely suggested that the outburst was spontaneous, blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for inciting a spontaneous riot on the anniversary of 9-11.
Both the headline ("A Diplomat's Detour Into the Benghazi Spotlight") and subhead ("Fill-in Role Becomes Obstacle for Rice as State Dept. Choice") favorably emphasized Rice's evasion of responsibility from what she actually told the nation after the attack.
more
On Front Page, NYT's Mark Landler Shields 'Stand-in...Bystander' Susan Rice From Benghazi Blame | NewsBusters.org
Took Him Long Enough: Scarborough Finally Scolds CNN’s Crowley for ‘Making Up History’ on Benghazi
It took more than a month -- and an intervening presidential election -- but it appears as though MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has finally joined the chorus of conservatives criticizing Candy Crowley for covering for President Obama’s false statements on Libya during the presidential debates.
Speaking on Monday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough strongly rebuked the Obama administration’s handling of the post-Benghazi coverage. [See video below page break. MP3 audio here.]
more
Took Him Long Enough: Scarborough Finally Scolds CNN
On Sunday's front page, New York Times reporter Mark Landler took the heat off United Nations ambassador Susan ("stand-in...bystander") Rice for her media tour spreading false statements about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were murdered by terrorists. Rice went on the Sunday shows after the terrorist attack and falsely suggested that the outburst was spontaneous, blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for inciting a spontaneous riot on the anniversary of 9-11.
Both the headline ("A Diplomat's Detour Into the Benghazi Spotlight") and subhead ("Fill-in Role Becomes Obstacle for Rice as State Dept. Choice") favorably emphasized Rice's evasion of responsibility from what she actually told the nation after the attack.
more
On Front Page, NYT's Mark Landler Shields 'Stand-in...Bystander' Susan Rice From Benghazi Blame | NewsBusters.org
Took Him Long Enough: Scarborough Finally Scolds CNN’s Crowley for ‘Making Up History’ on Benghazi
It took more than a month -- and an intervening presidential election -- but it appears as though MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has finally joined the chorus of conservatives criticizing Candy Crowley for covering for President Obama’s false statements on Libya during the presidential debates.
Speaking on Monday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough strongly rebuked the Obama administration’s handling of the post-Benghazi coverage. [See video below page break. MP3 audio here.]
more
Took Him Long Enough: Scarborough Finally Scolds CNN
Benghazi Scandal Being 'Prolonged' Because of Campaign 'Bitterness'
Appearing on Saturday's NBC Today, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood completely dismissed the scandal surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack as merely leftover campaign politics: "...what we're seeing in the Petraeus scandal and the Benghazi issue being prolonged is an extension of some of the conflict and the bitterness that we had during the election campaign." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Harwood predicted the whole controversy would just go away: "I'm not sure what the resolution of that is going to be. I think ultimately that energy is going to get spent and lawmakers are going to turn to the real crisis that is looming over the American economy, which is the fiscal cliff..."
more lunacy
CNBC's Harwood: Benghazi Scandal Being 'Prolonged' Because of Campaign 'Bitterness' | NewsBusters.org
Appearing on Saturday's NBC Today, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood completely dismissed the scandal surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack as merely leftover campaign politics: "...what we're seeing in the Petraeus scandal and the Benghazi issue being prolonged is an extension of some of the conflict and the bitterness that we had during the election campaign." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Harwood predicted the whole controversy would just go away: "I'm not sure what the resolution of that is going to be. I think ultimately that energy is going to get spent and lawmakers are going to turn to the real crisis that is looming over the American economy, which is the fiscal cliff..."
more lunacy
CNBC's Harwood: Benghazi Scandal Being 'Prolonged' Because of Campaign 'Bitterness' | NewsBusters.org
Obama is like a god to many American journalists. He is omniscient and all powerful to his votaries.
Apparently the Susan Rice compnent is interesting.
The Repubs don't want her to replace Hillary so they are dissing her big time.
But why would they do that?
They want John Kerry to replace Hillary. Not because they think Kerry can't do the job any better but they want Kerry out of the Senate and hope to win his seat...............
The Repubs don't want her to replace Hillary so they are dissing her big time.
But why would they do that?
They want John Kerry to replace Hillary. Not because they think Kerry can't do the job any better but they want Kerry out of the Senate and hope to win his seat...............
Can anyone say that Obama's policy on Libya has been successful? Shouldn't he be held responsible for the consequences of his policies? If Obama hadn't removed Gadhafi from power in Libya the US Ambassador would probably still be alive.
Obummer removing Dictators who have killed unknown numbers of his own countrymen for challenging his authority? What the f*** is wrong with Obummer? He should pay attention to these risks, just like the Bushies did.............
Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says.
During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”
New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims - Salon.com
Don't you ever change your tune??? you are getting.......................................
............................................Boring - YouTube