Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

     The x CIA chief should do the right thing. Put a .45 in his mouth and .............. !  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to TFefio's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't put anything past this lying crooked power crazed administration. Will be interesting if general kissass Colin Powell is tapped. Would all fall in place wouldn't it. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Paranoid conspiracies are part of the conservative handbook.  Continue on.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     The x CIA chief should do the right thing. Put a .45 in his mouth and .............. !  

    [/QUOTE]


    Nice. I guess you left the military sect. 8?

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

     

    The FBI was investigating a woman (the woman) for other reasons. She had written a book on Petraeus which is how they met. The FBI found thousands of emails between the two where the evidence was overwhelming they were involved, and when confronted with that information as part of the investigation, he opted to resign. There was no forcing his hand. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me understand your theory so I can debate it fairly...

    Obama was trying to spin the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous attack rather than an act of terror because he felt that was the best narrative for him to win the election.  He had dirt on Petraeus and decided to use it to force Petraeus to back up the narrative in his testimony on 9/14.  Once he won the election, Obama decided to use the dirt he had on Petraeus and force his resignation, and prevent his testimony in next week's House committee hearings.

    Is that a fair summary?

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me understand your theory so I can debate it fairly...

    Obama was trying to spin the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous attack rather than an act of terror because he felt that was the best narrative for him to win the election.  

    HE DIDN'T  TRY, THAT'S WHAT HE DID.  WERE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION?  DID YOU NOT WATCH THE NEWS?

    He had dirt on Petraeus and decided to use it to force Petraeus to back up the narrative in his testimony on 9/14.

    HE DID, PATRAEUS, THAT IS.  HE BACKED UP A KNOWN LIE,  THE VIDEO LIE.  WHY?

     Once he won the election, Obama decided to use the dirt he had on Petraeus and force his resignation, and prevent his testimony in next week's House committee hearings.

    AGAIN, HE DID.  YOU TELL ME WHY.

    Is that a fair summary?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Comments in Caps above.

    Also, just to reiterate:  The FBI was spying on Petraeus for a YEAR.  Are you tellign me Obama didn't know?  Who has the clout to order the spying on Patraeus? 

    Not many options here.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me understand your theory so I can debate it fairly...

    Obama was trying to spin the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous attack rather than an act of terror because he felt that was the best narrative for him to win the election.  

    HE DIDN'T  TRY, THAT'S WHAT HE DID.  WERE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION?  DID YOU NOT WATCH THE NEWS?

    He had dirt on Petraeus and decided to use it to force Petraeus to back up the narrative in his testimony on 9/14.

    HE DID, PATRAEUS, THAT IS.  HE BACKED UP A KNOWN LIE,  THE VIDEO LIE.  WHY?

     Once he won the election, Obama decided to use the dirt he had on Petraeus and force his resignation, and prevent his testimony in next week's House committee hearings.

    AGAIN, HE DID.  YOU TELL ME WHY.

    Is that a fair summary?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Comments in Caps above.

    Also, just to reiterate:  The FBI was spying on Petraeus for a YEAR.  Are you tellign me Obama didn't know?  Who has the clout to order the spying on Patraeus? 

    Not many options here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Petraeus can still be called to testify, right?  If the white house was black-mailing Petraeus on 9/14, and it was proven to work, why not just continue to black-mail him for the upcoming testimony?

    What is the incentive now for Petraeus not to go public with the truth?

    And again, your timeline is

    9/11 - Benghazi attack

    9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again

    9/14 - Obama black-mails Petraeus into denying they were acts of terror.

    I think I still have a very high opinion of Petraeus - he may have screwed up in his personal life, but I have a hard time believing he would let himself be blackmailed, then screwed over, and just keep his mouth shut about it.

    I think there is more to this story, but I don't think it's going to wind up implicating the white house in any way.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me understand your theory so I can debate it fairly...

    Obama was trying to spin the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous attack rather than an act of terror because he felt that was the best narrative for him to win the election.  

    HE DIDN'T  TRY, THAT'S WHAT HE DID.  WERE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION?  DID YOU NOT WATCH THE NEWS?

    He had dirt on Petraeus and decided to use it to force Petraeus to back up the narrative in his testimony on 9/14.

    HE DID, PATRAEUS, THAT IS.  HE BACKED UP A KNOWN LIE,  THE VIDEO LIE.  WHY?

     Once he won the election, Obama decided to use the dirt he had on Petraeus and force his resignation, and prevent his testimony in next week's House committee hearings.

    AGAIN, HE DID.  YOU TELL ME WHY.

    Is that a fair summary?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Comments in Caps above.

    Also, just to reiterate:  The FBI was spying on Petraeus for a YEAR.  Are you tellign me Obama didn't know?  Who has the clout to order the spying on Patraeus? 

    Not many options here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Petraeus can still be called to testify, right?  If the white house was black-mailing Petraeus on 9/14, and it was proven to work, why not just continue to black-mail him for the upcoming testimony?

    What is the incentive now for Petraeus not to go public with the truth?

    And again, your timeline is

    9/11 - Benghazi attack

    9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    No, he did not.  Even the 60 minutes inteview backs me up on that.  Obama WITH HIS OWN WORDS said we did not know enough to call it terror.

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again

    WRONG. SEE ABOVE.

    9/14 - Obama black-mails Petraeus into denying they were acts of terror.

    NO.  DID NOT SAY THAT.  THOUGH PETRAEUS DID BLAME IT ON THE VIDEO, WHICH HAD AREADY BEEN DISCREDITED

    I think I still have a very high opinion of Petraeus - he may have screwed up in his personal life, but I have a hard time believing he would let himself be blackmailed, then screwed over, and just keep his mouth shut about it.

    I think there is more to this story, but I don't think it's going to wind up implicating the white house in any way.

    Timing, my friend.  The timing is incredibly suspect.

    You are allowing yourself to be fooled.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again"

     

    Do you mean when he loosely referred to "acts of terror" in general with ZERO context to Benghazi?

    Have you watched the Kroft interview and seen the "terrorism" question that was cut from the interview until after the election?  Have you seen Kroft state "Mr President, you`ve said that Benghazi was not an act of terror" and you can CLEARLY hear Obama saying "ah-ah" and agreeing?

    You should watch if you haven`t seen it. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Jmel, the context was in the very next sentence - you have to get out of the coverage bubble...

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me understand your theory so I can debate it fairly...

    Obama was trying to spin the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous attack rather than an act of terror because he felt that was the best narrative for him to win the election.  

    HE DIDN'T  TRY, THAT'S WHAT HE DID.  WERE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION?  DID YOU NOT WATCH THE NEWS?

    He had dirt on Petraeus and decided to use it to force Petraeus to back up the narrative in his testimony on 9/14.

    HE DID, PATRAEUS, THAT IS.  HE BACKED UP A KNOWN LIE,  THE VIDEO LIE.  WHY?

     Once he won the election, Obama decided to use the dirt he had on Petraeus and force his resignation, and prevent his testimony in next week's House committee hearings.

    AGAIN, HE DID.  YOU TELL ME WHY.

    Is that a fair summary?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Comments in Caps above.

    Also, just to reiterate:  The FBI was spying on Petraeus for a YEAR.  Are you tellign me Obama didn't know?  Who has the clout to order the spying on Patraeus? 

    Not many options here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Petraeus can still be called to testify, right?  If the white house was black-mailing Petraeus on 9/14, and it was proven to work, why not just continue to black-mail him for the upcoming testimony?

    What is the incentive now for Petraeus not to go public with the truth?

    And again, your timeline is

    9/11 - Benghazi attack

    9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    No, he did not.  Even the 60 minutes inteview backs me up on that.  Obama WITH HIS OWN WORDS said we did not know enough to call it terror.

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again

    WRONG. SEE ABOVE.

    9/14 - Obama black-mails Petraeus into denying they were acts of terror.

    NO.  DID NOT SAY THAT.  THOUGH PETRAEUS DID BLAME IT ON THE VIDEO, WHICH HAD AREADY BEEN DISCREDITED

    I think I still have a very high opinion of Petraeus - he may have screwed up in his personal life, but I have a hard time believing he would let himself be blackmailed, then screwed over, and just keep his mouth shut about it.

    I think there is more to this story, but I don't think it's going to wind up implicating the white house in any way.

    Timing, my friend.  The timing is incredibly suspect.

    You are allowing yourself to be fooled.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll concede that Obama was reluctant to use the term "terrorist", but he wasn't trying to sell a spontaneous protest - he says in the 60 minutes interview that it was clear the atackers had the intent of harming Americans.

    I agree the timing is suspect - you just haven't presented a theory that fits.  If Obama had been black-mailing Petraeus before 9/14, he had even more on him after 9/14 - Petraeus had presented false testimony to Congress.  Why not just have him lie again?

    Here's a theory - Petraeus was being black-mailed by somebody on the right.  They wanted him to give false testimony at next week's hearing to set the ground for impeachment.  It explains the timing (not necessary if Romney had won) and it explains why the GOP-led House is suddenly no longer interested in his testimony.  And if you believe that Petraeus is an honorable guy who loves his country, it means he resigned rather than allowing himself to be co-erced into lying to Congress.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again"

     

    Do you mean when he loosely referred to "acts of terror" in general with ZERO context to Benghazi?

    Have you watched the Kroft interview and seen the "terrorism" question that was cut from the interview until after the election?  Have you seen Kroft state "Mr President, you`ve said that Benghazi was not an act of terror" and you can CLEARLY hear Obama saying "ah-ah" and agreeing?

    You should watch if you haven`t seen it. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Jmel, the context was in the very next sentence - you have to get out of the coverage bubble...

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you haven`t watched the Kroft footage?  You should.  It exposes the lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I have, and here's the transcript ...

    KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

     

    OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.  

     

    KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

     

    OBAMA:  As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this.   But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.  And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start.  So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

     

    Do you think he's trying to sell us on a spontaneous protest over the youtube video?

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again"

     

    Do you mean when he loosely referred to "acts of terror" in general with ZERO context to Benghazi?

    Have you watched the Kroft interview and seen the "terrorism" question that was cut from the interview until after the election?  Have you seen Kroft state "Mr President, you`ve said that Benghazi was not an act of terror" and you can CLEARLY hear Obama saying "ah-ah" and agreeing?

    You should watch if you haven`t seen it. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Jmel, the context was in the very next sentence - you have to get out of the coverage bubble...

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you haven`t watched the Kroft footage?  You should.  It exposes the lies.

    "In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.

     

    CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

     

     

     

    OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

     

     

     

    CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.

     

     

     

    That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether."

     

    Watch it live, it has much more impact.

    [/QUOTE]


    You forgot the followup question...

    KROFT: It'€™s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn'€™t sound like your normal demonstration.

     

    OBAMA:  As I said, we'€™re still investigating exactly what happened, I don'€™t want to jump the gun on this.   But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.  And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start.  So we'€™re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

     

    You can argue he's reluctant to say "terrorist", but you can't argue he's spinning the spontaneous youtube protest story.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "You can argue he's reluctant to say "terrorist", but you can't argue he's spinning the spontaneous youtube protest story."

     

    Agreed.  So why would he continue (after the 12th and for many weeks and appearences) to blame the video? Rice said it 5 times on 5 different shows.  Hillary contiued to say it and so did Jay Carney.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think we have very different views on the attack:

    You believe this was an attack that was planned by a specific group or terrorist cell.  It was planned for weeks, months or years.  There are elements of Al Qaeda involved, and the purpose was to strike us on 9/11 in revenge for killing bin Laden, and as a reminder that Al Qaeda and terrorism are still alive in the region.

    I believe that in the most dangerous part of Libya, in the aftermath of the toppling of a dictator, this attack was planned in a matter of hours, and was fueled by anger throughout the region over the youtube video.  It had nothing to do with bin Laden, and was carried out by militants with ties or relations to many terrorist groups, but not a single terrorist group with a specific agenda.  At the scene of the attack were militants, protestors and Libyan citizens, and sometimes it was difficult to tell them apart.

    If you're right, I can understand why you would want a stronger response from the administration.  If I'm right, it makes sense to connect the youtube video to any reference to Benghazi.

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     The x CIA chief should do the right thing. Put a .45 in his mouth and .............. !  

    [/QUOTE]

    Sis, this may be a post you want to delete.   All respect, just sayin`

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Why ? Petraeus might have leaked National defense secrets and classified material to his mistress.  These 4 Star Generals and Admirals are supposed to live by a different code than you and I. He should do the right and honorable thing now .

    jmel have you ever heard the story about the death of Admiral Jeremy Brooda ? 

     

Share