View Full Version : Petraeus testifies

11-17-2012, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Petraeus testifies that he believed terrorists were behind Libya attack

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the US Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that <u>the administration</u> withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the US intelligence community was on their trail.

Petraeus also said it initially was unclear whether militants infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies’ assessments.

An apologetic Petraeus expresses regret for affair

After the hearings, lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA’s draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure <u>which federal agency </u>deleted it.

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>‘‘The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,’’ said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. ‘‘He completely debunked that idea.’’ </span></div></div>

ie, no conspiracy and no cover up.


11-17-2012, 10:00 AM
Rice said exactly what the many-headed intel community had fashioned for public release using unclassified or declassified material. It is the complaint of those attacking her that she did not break the law and disclose classified material.

That it was against the law to do so either hasn't reached their brains, or simply is irrelevant when it comes to their perhaps thought patriotic duty to get Myth Robme elected. Given that appalling candidacy is now officially toast, maybe they can stop these wholly politicized attacks? They should, but they won't. Books to sell, websites to get traffic for, reputations to try to defend, and always, just the sheer fun of slandering the president and his administration.

11-18-2012, 02:33 AM
Lets face it, for the last 4 years all they have done is bash Obama. Its their only topic! If Mittens had won, there would be 4 years of Fox kissing his a$$.

Little Green footballs does a great breakdown of this non-scandal. link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41208_The_Ludicrous_Right_Wing_Benghazi-Gate_Fake_Scandal_Gets_Even_More_Ludicrous)

Here, classic Fox hit job.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what I was suggesting is -- I was suggesting that someone at the White House set up Ambassador Rice, perhaps. I don't know for sure.


VAN SUSTEREN: But I think that she -- I mean, I can't believe that Ambassador Rice would make the decision to exclude al Qaeda and go on those shows...

ROHRABACHER: Oh, I don't...

VAN SUSTEREN: ... and make herself look foolish.


VAN SUSTEREN: I think, in some ways, that she was...


VAN SUSTEREN: I think she got hung out to dry!

ROHRABACHER: No, I agree. This is not -- Ambassador Rice was set up by the White House for whatever reason. And the president himself is right when he says, Don't blame her, blame the president of the United States. But for him then to utilize her to lie to the American people and then to nominate her or to float her name as a possible secretary of state -- it's worse than insulting.

VAN SUSTEREN: I tell you -- I tell you where I do fault her, though, and that's not asking more questions...


VAN SUSTEREN: ... because it -- you know -- you know, even within a day or two, everyone -- everyone pretty much suspected, you know, the terrorists. I mean, it had all the earmarks of it and people suspected it. So I would have expected that she would follow through and ask questions.

Remember, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the United Nations, and he didn't ask very many questions and he talked about weapons of mass destruction that didn't turn up in Iraq. So -- you know, so -- you know, I'm a little bit suspicious of these government employees being sent out to talk essentially and give a message to the American people that, frankly, isn't so!

ROHRABACHER: I think there's every reason to worry about that. Just because Secretary Powell had been put in the same spot doesn't...

VAN SUSTEREN: But should have asked questions!

ROHRABACHER: Right -- and doesn't excuse this president from sending out someone to lie in the middle of a crisis </div></div>



11-18-2012, 10:18 AM

I agree with what you say except for that characterization.

They may or may not be stupid as to whether their attacks will work, ultimately, but they may very well work, enough, to do what they intend.

Going with 'evil liars' myself. I don't think this can be at all attributed to any lack of thinking ability (at the leadership level of who is pushing this line). Maybe for the down-line acolytes who self-impose restricted lines of information, but not at the most senior levels.

I'd say this hides an effort to get a more neo-con pro-Zionist kind of SecState (as HRC was, as most top national level officials have been required to be), to thwart a second term more realistic, more pro-America ME agenda. Scratch any of these leaders of this meme just fractionally and you'll find a pro-Likudnik, pro-Netanyahu, anti-peace and anti-American dual loyalist.

11-20-2012, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Idiots.

I agree with what you say except for that characterization.

They may or may not be stupid as to whether their attacks will work, ultimately, but they may very well work, enough, to do what they intend. Going with 'evil liars' myself.</div></div>


What I meant was that these 'evil liars' are idiots if they think they are fooling anybody. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I agree. There are ulterior motives behind this false outrage.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Just four years ago, John McCain was the leader of the GOP. Today, he's the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a perch from which the former fighter pilot is deeply engaged in the national conversation over war, terrorism and intelligence gathering.

But in January, the Arizona senator will lose his top-ranking committee seat due to term limits. The only ranking Republican spot available to him next session will be on the Indian Affairs Committee.

Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee. On Wednesday, McCain, flanked by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), proposed just that: a select committee with extensive authority to investigate the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the U.S. government's response.

The Republican most likely to hold the ranking spot on such a panel would be, of course, John McCain, giving the Arizona senator a new burst of relevance. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/john-mccain-benghazi-committee_n_2145457.html)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well that didn’t take long.

For anyone still wondering why Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has taken the lead for the GOP, along with John McCain, on trying to exploit the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya two months ago, we now have our answer.

Lindsey Graham is using our dead ambassador for his re-election campaign.

Even Mitt Romney wasn’t this morbidly brazen.

But the evidence is incontrovertible. Lindsey Graham is running campaign ads about Benghazi. One such ad was found by Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters on the Talk Points Memo site, and another on Daily Kos (Alvin forwarded them to me): </div></div>


link (http://americablog.com/2012/11/lindsey-graham-campaign-ads-benghazi-liby.html)

Disgusting is the word that comes to mind.

Imagine if a Democrat exploited the deaths of 4 Americans to get re-elected!


11-20-2012, 09:53 AM
Get 'to the bottom of it'?

Mayhaps Huckleberry Lindsay refers to the rumors widely spread (heh!) among gay Republicans that Stevens was sodomized with a rifle or bayonet on a rifle either while alive, or his body desecrated after his death in that fashion (or both, of course).

Funny, I wouldn't have thought Lindsay would be on top of anything!

My apologies to any gays or families and friends of same who might find such joking offensive. (Although I think they make the same kinds of jokes amongst themselves.)