Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    jmel, lay off the kool aid .  You know you are suppose to give credit to who every wrote last comment. BTW the empty threat of the last statement that you cut and pasted , "the full power of the constitution must be brought to bear" means nada . Have you ever heard of executive privilege ?




    "Kool aid"?   You`re being lied to.  Right to your face!  An attack by al Qaeda on Sep 11th and the Incompetent skips off to Vegas while blaming a video?  Sending out legions of useless under-lings to lie deliberately?

    Sis, you fought for this counrty.  You deserve the truth.




    Didn't Petraeus supply the truth ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    At this point the whacko wingnuts on these boards are bouncing around their rubber rooms drooling uncontrollably as they continue to scream at the walls.

    Any evidence, no matter the source, is dismissed because, and only because, it doesn't reinforce their ideological ignorance.

    Pathetic really.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    jmel, lay off the kool aid .  You know you are suppose to give credit to who every wrote last comment. BTW the empty threat of the last statement that you cut and pasted , "the full power of the constitution must be brought to bear" means nada . Have you ever heard of executive privilege ?




    "Kool aid"?   You`re being lied to.  Right to your face!  An attack by al Qaeda on Sep 11th and the Incompetent skips off to Vegas while blaming a video?  Sending out legions of useless under-lings to lie deliberately?

    Sis, you fought for this counrty.  You deserve the truth.




    Sis is, well, being less than truthful.

    But, that aside, you are right.

    I would think Sis would want t oknow:  Who put forward the video story, and when did they do it?

    When we answer that, the "investigation" will be getting somewhere.




    I think there was and is and will be some more "investigations" ! 

    BTW skeeter are you calling me a liar ?

    You "born agains" just don't play well with others do you ?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    jmel, lay off the kool aid .  You know you are suppose to give credit to who every wrote last comment. BTW the empty threat of the last statement that you cut and pasted , "the full power of the constitution must be brought to bear" means nada . Have you ever heard of executive privilege ?




    "Kool aid"?   You`re being lied to.  Right to your face!  An attack by al Qaeda on Sep 11th and the Incompetent skips off to Vegas while blaming a video?  Sending out legions of useless under-lings to lie deliberately?

    Sis, you fought for this counrty.  You deserve the truth.




    Didn't Petraeus supply the truth ?




    Yes! He said that he knew it was al qaeda right away.  He said that CIA agents on the ground knew it was a calculated, coordinated attack by an al qaeda affiliate right away.  He said his talking points and the CIA`s clearly said "al Qaeda and terrorists", and he said that is what he signed off on.  He also said that someone, somewhere changed those talking points.  He testified under oath to all of this on Friday.




    jmel I have to add to what you stated that Petraeus said in his meeting Friday. If I ain't mistaken he said al Qaeda was omitted from the WH talking points so not to tip off the the people who were involved in the attack.

    I have seen what a human looks like after a violence attack or what it doesn't look like because it ain't there anymore. So kia's, mia's ,wia's are a very sad result of warfare and so isn't the life of a soldier after all the unnatural stress that the poor person has to endure. BUT do you want to know what I am really interested in concerning the Benghazi attack ?

     I WISH THAT THEY WOULD QUIT BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND ASK WHY WERE WE  IN BENGHAZI IN THE FIRST PLACE !

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    Ummm, that's kinda the reason we have Ambassadors and it's kind their job.

    The diplomacy thingy....

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Those on the right who are trying to make this into a scandal are simply engaging in partisan political games. Blaming Obama for the deaths in Benghazi is the equivalent of blaming Bush for 9/11. It's simply partisan games.


    I saw Ambassador Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday following the attack. It was very clear she was acting on the intelligence received. Heck..if I remember correctly there were no shortage of threads in this forum debating the video. The point is most people thought the same thing.  The administration had several credible reports that it was related to the protests over the video. If you stop and think about everything that was going on in the middle east over the course of those days..it's was a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

    Those on this site and on the media who are trying to come up with scandals and conspiracies are pathetic and with every word they type...they reveal how little they know about investigations and national security.


    In this matter...no one knows who knew what..and when..and where the breakdowns were.  Was it a breakdown in process..?? Or human error..?? Did someone lie/coverup..? I don't know the answer to any of these questions..and neither does anyone else on this site. I prefer to let the investigation take place first and then comment on the findings.



    Nobody is blaming the president for the 4 deaths.........or certainly I`m not.   It`s the cover up.  I would urge you to review the data (some of which is right here in today`s Globe).  You will clearly see that CIA results and report was "changed at the highest level to omit al Qaeda and terrorist attack".  It`s the cover up.



    This is really unbelievable.  If your stance is that the administration edited the CIA talking points to change terrorist or "Al Qaeda linked militants" to extremists, because it was better PR for the election - that's not outlandish.  I don't think that's what happened, but it's not a ridiculous angle to take.

    What is ridiculous is that for months you've been convinced that there was never any indication from the intelligence community that Benghazi was linked to Cairo or a youtube video.  The administration concocted a fairy tale to deny what was obvioiusly an Al Qaeda revenge killing for Osama bin Laden.  You have lived and died by this narrative and it's been disproved by the SAME TALKING POINTS you are now using to launch into your next narrative.  

    You can't have it both ways!  Either the talking points don't matter because the CIA was in on the coverup (some went so far as to suggest that Petraeus had been blackmailed into providing the original talking points) or the talking points were valid except for changing "Ansar al Sharia" to "extremists" (or a similar edit).

    If you're going to take the latter approach, then you have swallow the parts of the talking points that completely annihilate your narrative of the past two months.  This little nugget was in both versions, edited and unedited (a point made by Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week, thank you very much) and BTW Petraeus signed off on the final version of the talking points, and was surprised the edit was even a cause for controversy ...

    The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. 

     



    How many times do you need to see and hear UNDENIABLE PROOF that Patreaus and the CIA operatives on the ground signed off on talking points (talking points that they were told were final) and then THOSE TALKING POINTS WERE CHANGED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE US GOVERNMENT!!!!  Gawd............you don`t seem to be a dumb person (most of the time).  And, don`t put words in my mouth. I never said "revenge for bin Laden", ever.  I`ve said from day 1.....this was a terrorist attack.  A terrorist attack that the CIA knew about, Hillary knew about, Patreaus knew about, Jay Carney knew about, Libyan officials knew about, and the Incompetent knew about.  If you didn`t know..............well, you`re either lying or maybe you ARE a dumb person.



     

    You're just mistaken - Petraeus signed off on the EDITED talking points.  The big "controversy" now is that "terrorist" was changed to "extremist".  Whoa - move over Watergate!  Nothing about the spontaneous response to Cairo is in dispute.

     

    CBS News obtained the CIA talking points given both to Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15, and they make no specific reference to "terrorism" being a likely factor in the assault. However, they did indicate that "extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

     

    Conrad said Rice "did completely the appropriate thing."

     

    "She used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community," Conrad said. "There are other things that are classified. That's a totally different subject."

     




    I guess you missed this (it`s only been posted about 5 times and written everywhere).  Patraeus TESTIFIED UNDER OATH that the documents were changed AFTER he and the CIA agents on the ground signed off on them (again) "at the highest level of government"

    "The inquiry comes on the heels of closed testimony to the committees last week by former CIA Director David Petraeus. According to lawmakers who attended the meetings, Petraeus said the reference to al-Qaida was removed from the final version of talking points, although he wasn’t sure who or which federal agency deleted it."

    He was very clear........"al Qeada and terrorists" were deleted.  Many Democrats want a hearing.  Don`t know why you are against learning the (obvious)truth.

     And then there`s this:

    Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed…

    “The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” [Rep. Peter] King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague “inter-agency process.”

    Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.”




    You're just mistaken, Jmel - I can give you a dozen sources that state that Petraeus signed off on the edited talking points.  Your quote is ambiguous - it doesn't mention signing off on anything.  And he did not testify under oath, not that that should matter.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Petraeus had signed off on the final talking points and that going after Rice was a useless witch hunt.

    Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/11/18/congress-to-investigate-benghazi-talking-points/#ixzz2CigGd242

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack/

    Petraeus could not explain why the reference was removed from the final version or who did the editing, but he admitting signing off on the talking points that Rice eventually read, lawmakers said.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cia-sex-scandal-coming-capitol-hill-article-1.1203079#ixzz2CihAovfX

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Those on the right who are trying to make this into a scandal are simply engaging in partisan political games. Blaming Obama for the deaths in Benghazi is the equivalent of blaming Bush for 9/11. It's simply partisan games.


    I saw Ambassador Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday following the attack. It was very clear she was acting on the intelligence received. Heck..if I remember correctly there were no shortage of threads in this forum debating the video. The point is most people thought the same thing.  The administration had several credible reports that it was related to the protests over the video. If you stop and think about everything that was going on in the middle east over the course of those days..it's was a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

    Those on this site and on the media who are trying to come up with scandals and conspiracies are pathetic and with every word they type...they reveal how little they know about investigations and national security.


    In this matter...no one knows who knew what..and when..and where the breakdowns were.  Was it a breakdown in process..?? Or human error..?? Did someone lie/coverup..? I don't know the answer to any of these questions..and neither does anyone else on this site. I prefer to let the investigation take place first and then comment on the findings.



    Nobody is blaming the president for the 4 deaths.........or certainly I`m not.   It`s the cover up.  I would urge you to review the data (some of which is right here in today`s Globe).  You will clearly see that CIA results and report was "changed at the highest level to omit al Qaeda and terrorist attack".  It`s the cover up.



    This is really unbelievable.  If your stance is that the administration edited the CIA talking points to change terrorist or "Al Qaeda linked militants" to extremists, because it was better PR for the election - that's not outlandish.  I don't think that's what happened, but it's not a ridiculous angle to take.

    What is ridiculous is that for months you've been convinced that there was never any indication from the intelligence community that Benghazi was linked to Cairo or a youtube video.  The administration concocted a fairy tale to deny what was obvioiusly an Al Qaeda revenge killing for Osama bin Laden.  You have lived and died by this narrative and it's been disproved by the SAME TALKING POINTS you are now using to launch into your next narrative.  

    You can't have it both ways!  Either the talking points don't matter because the CIA was in on the coverup (some went so far as to suggest that Petraeus had been blackmailed into providing the original talking points) or the talking points were valid except for changing "Ansar al Sharia" to "extremists" (or a similar edit).

    If you're going to take the latter approach, then you have swallow the parts of the talking points that completely annihilate your narrative of the past two months.  This little nugget was in both versions, edited and unedited (a point made by Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week, thank you very much) and BTW Petraeus signed off on the final version of the talking points, and was surprised the edit was even a cause for controversy ...

    The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. 

     



    So, why dod the White House edit the talking points?



    I don't think they did - I think they're telling the truth and the talking points were edited before they reached the administration.

    But if they did edit the talking points, is this what you were talking about as a bigger scandal than Watergate?  Changing "terrorist" to "extremist" in a CIA talking points memo?

    Skeeter - you're on record saying the CIA was involved in the coverup, and Petraeus was blackmailed to back up the administrations narrative.  Are you really going to pivot to minutia on talking points without a gigantic mea culpa?

     



    That the white house editied the talking points that the CIA provided, that isn't really  in dispute, is it?  I mean, who could have edited the talking points?  The courier?  The mailman?  Doesn't pass the sniff test.

    I never said that the CIA was invovled in the cover up, I simply pointed out what any sane person would, that Petraeus was compromised, and looks like I was correct.

    Still, I am left asking:  Who cooked up the false video narrative and why?  Don't you want the answer to that?



    The white house denies editing the talking points.  Mike Rogers was on MTP talking about a Deputies Committee as the next place these talking points would go - I'm not sure if that's part of the administration or the intelligence community.

    I don't think there was a false video narrative - there were 20 other protests linked to the video.  If Benghazi was not about the video, it was the exception to the violence that occurred that day.

    Since then, the CIA and other intelligence analysts have settled on what amounts to a hybrid view, suggesting that the Cairo protest sparked militants in Libya, who quickly mobilized an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story_1.html

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Those on the right who are trying to make this into a scandal are simply engaging in partisan political games. Blaming Obama for the deaths in Benghazi is the equivalent of blaming Bush for 9/11. It's simply partisan games.


    I saw Ambassador Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday following the attack. It was very clear she was acting on the intelligence received. Heck..if I remember correctly there were no shortage of threads in this forum debating the video. The point is most people thought the same thing.  The administration had several credible reports that it was related to the protests over the video. If you stop and think about everything that was going on in the middle east over the course of those days..it's was a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

    Those on this site and on the media who are trying to come up with scandals and conspiracies are pathetic and with every word they type...they reveal how little they know about investigations and national security.


    In this matter...no one knows who knew what..and when..and where the breakdowns were.  Was it a breakdown in process..?? Or human error..?? Did someone lie/coverup..? I don't know the answer to any of these questions..and neither does anyone else on this site. I prefer to let the investigation take place first and then comment on the findings.



    Nobody is blaming the president for the 4 deaths.........or certainly I`m not.   It`s the cover up.  I would urge you to review the data (some of which is right here in today`s Globe).  You will clearly see that CIA results and report was "changed at the highest level to omit al Qaeda and terrorist attack".  It`s the cover up.



    This is really unbelievable.  If your stance is that the administration edited the CIA talking points to change terrorist or "Al Qaeda linked militants" to extremists, because it was better PR for the election - that's not outlandish.  I don't think that's what happened, but it's not a ridiculous angle to take.

    What is ridiculous is that for months you've been convinced that there was never any indication from the intelligence community that Benghazi was linked to Cairo or a youtube video.  The administration concocted a fairy tale to deny what was obvioiusly an Al Qaeda revenge killing for Osama bin Laden.  You have lived and died by this narrative and it's been disproved by the SAME TALKING POINTS you are now using to launch into your next narrative.  

    You can't have it both ways!  Either the talking points don't matter because the CIA was in on the coverup (some went so far as to suggest that Petraeus had been blackmailed into providing the original talking points) or the talking points were valid except for changing "Ansar al Sharia" to "extremists" (or a similar edit).

    If you're going to take the latter approach, then you have swallow the parts of the talking points that completely annihilate your narrative of the past two months.  This little nugget was in both versions, edited and unedited (a point made by Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week, thank you very much) and BTW Petraeus signed off on the final version of the talking points, and was surprised the edit was even a cause for controversy ...

    The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. 

     



    How many times do you need to see and hear UNDENIABLE PROOF that Patreaus and the CIA operatives on the ground signed off on talking points (talking points that they were told were final) and then THOSE TALKING POINTS WERE CHANGED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE US GOVERNMENT!!!!  Gawd............you don`t seem to be a dumb person (most of the time).  And, don`t put words in my mouth. I never said "revenge for bin Laden", ever.  I`ve said from day 1.....this was a terrorist attack.  A terrorist attack that the CIA knew about, Hillary knew about, Patreaus knew about, Jay Carney knew about, Libyan officials knew about, and the Incompetent knew about.  If you didn`t know..............well, you`re either lying or maybe you ARE a dumb person.



     

    You're just mistaken - Petraeus signed off on the EDITED talking points.  The big "controversy" now is that "terrorist" was changed to "extremist".  Whoa - move over Watergate!  Nothing about the spontaneous response to Cairo is in dispute.

     

    CBS News obtained the CIA talking points given both to Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15, and they make no specific reference to "terrorism" being a likely factor in the assault. However, they did indicate that "extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

     

    Conrad said Rice "did completely the appropriate thing."

     

    "She used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community," Conrad said. "There are other things that are classified. That's a totally different subject."

     




    I guess you missed this (it`s only been posted about 5 times and written everywhere).  Patraeus TESTIFIED UNDER OATH that the documents were changed AFTER he and the CIA agents on the ground signed off on them (again) "at the highest level of government"

    "The inquiry comes on the heels of closed testimony to the committees last week by former CIA Director David Petraeus. According to lawmakers who attended the meetings, Petraeus said the reference to al-Qaida was removed from the final version of talking points, although he wasn’t sure who or which federal agency deleted it."

    He was very clear........"al Qeada and terrorists" were deleted.  Many Democrats want a hearing.  Don`t know why you are against learning the (obvious)truth.

     And then there`s this:

    Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed…

    “The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” [Rep. Peter] King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague “inter-agency process.”

    Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.”




    You're just mistaken, Jmel - I can give you a dozen sources that state that Petraeus signed off on the edited talking points.  Your quote is ambiguous - it doesn't mention signing off on anything.  And he did not testify under oath, not that that should matter.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Petraeus had signed off on the final talking points and that going after Rice was a useless witch hunt.

    Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/11/18/congress-to-investigate-benghazi-talking-points/#ixzz2CigGd242

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack/

    Petraeus could not explain why the reference was removed from the final version or who did the editing, but he admitting signing off on the talking points that Rice eventually read, lawmakers said.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cia-sex-scandal-coming-capitol-hill-article-1.1203079#ixzz2CihAovfX

     



    I watched Levin on 2 talk shows yesterday.  He was a bumbling b o o b and got his clock cleaned by Lindsay Graham and even the host, David Gregory.  Then later, Lieberman and Chambliss made minced-meat out of him.  If I`m so wrong, why is Congress holding hearings?  Why did 97 Congressmen send a letter to the Incompetent today about Rice?  The fact is, Patreaus testified under oath that the documents were changed AFTER he signed off.  

    This isn`t going away and you look pathetic and desperate. 

    Is it difficult to get 97 Congressmen to do something idiotic and hyperpartisan?

    I don't know what to tell you - I can post a dozen more links to reports that Petraeus signed off on the edited talking points.  You don't like Levin?  Fine - Diane Feinstein said it.  Mark Udall said it.  Kent Conrad said it.  Even Peter King said it, though his theory is that somebody strong-armed Petraeus into signing the edited talking points.

    There will be an open hearing at some point - if you find out that Petraeus signed off on talking points that linked Benghazi to Cairo and the youtube video, will you admit you were wrong about everything (regarding a coverup)?

     

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Those on the right who are trying to make this into a scandal are simply engaging in partisan political games. Blaming Obama for the deaths in Benghazi is the equivalent of blaming Bush for 9/11. It's simply partisan games.


    I saw Ambassador Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday following the attack. It was very clear she was acting on the intelligence received. Heck..if I remember correctly there were no shortage of threads in this forum debating the video. The point is most people thought the same thing.  The administration had several credible reports that it was related to the protests over the video. If you stop and think about everything that was going on in the middle east over the course of those days..it's was a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

    Those on this site and on the media who are trying to come up with scandals and conspiracies are pathetic and with every word they type...they reveal how little they know about investigations and national security.


    In this matter...no one knows who knew what..and when..and where the breakdowns were.  Was it a breakdown in process..?? Or human error..?? Did someone lie/coverup..? I don't know the answer to any of these questions..and neither does anyone else on this site. I prefer to let the investigation take place first and then comment on the findings.



    Nobody is blaming the president for the 4 deaths.........or certainly I`m not.   It`s the cover up.  I would urge you to review the data (some of which is right here in today`s Globe).  You will clearly see that CIA results and report was "changed at the highest level to omit al Qaeda and terrorist attack".  It`s the cover up.



    This is really unbelievable.  If your stance is that the administration edited the CIA talking points to change terrorist or "Al Qaeda linked militants" to extremists, because it was better PR for the election - that's not outlandish.  I don't think that's what happened, but it's not a ridiculous angle to take.

    What is ridiculous is that for months you've been convinced that there was never any indication from the intelligence community that Benghazi was linked to Cairo or a youtube video.  The administration concocted a fairy tale to deny what was obvioiusly an Al Qaeda revenge killing for Osama bin Laden.  You have lived and died by this narrative and it's been disproved by the SAME TALKING POINTS you are now using to launch into your next narrative.  

    You can't have it both ways!  Either the talking points don't matter because the CIA was in on the coverup (some went so far as to suggest that Petraeus had been blackmailed into providing the original talking points) or the talking points were valid except for changing "Ansar al Sharia" to "extremists" (or a similar edit).

    If you're going to take the latter approach, then you have swallow the parts of the talking points that completely annihilate your narrative of the past two months.  This little nugget was in both versions, edited and unedited (a point made by Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week, thank you very much) and BTW Petraeus signed off on the final version of the talking points, and was surprised the edit was even a cause for controversy ...

    The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. 

     



    So, why dod the White House edit the talking points?



    I don't think they did - I think they're telling the truth and the talking points were edited before they reached the administration.

    But if they did edit the talking points, is this what you were talking about as a bigger scandal than Watergate?  Changing "terrorist" to "extremist" in a CIA talking points memo?

    Skeeter - you're on record saying the CIA was involved in the coverup, and Petraeus was blackmailed to back up the administrations narrative.  Are you really going to pivot to minutia on talking points without a gigantic mea culpa?

     



    That the white house editied the talking points that the CIA provided, that isn't really  in dispute, is it?  I mean, who could have edited the talking points?  The courier?  The mailman?  Doesn't pass the sniff test.

    I never said that the CIA was invovled in the cover up, I simply pointed out what any sane person would, that Petraeus was compromised, and looks like I was correct.

    Still, I am left asking:  Who cooked up the false video narrative and why?  Don't you want the answer to that?



    The white house denies editing the talking points.  Mike Rogers was on MTP talking about a Deputies Committee as the next place these talking points would go - I'm not sure if that's part of the administration or the intelligence community.

    I don't think there was a false video narrative - there were 20 other protests linked to the video.  If Benghazi was not about the video, it was the exception to the violence that occurred that day.

    Since then, the CIA and other intelligence analysts have settled on what amounts to a hybrid view, suggesting that the Cairo protest sparked militants in Libya, who quickly mobilized an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story_1.html




    Lay off the video.  It has already been proven to be a false narrative.

    The video you should be focusing on is the one from the drone.

    But, let's also remember not to get lost in the weeds on this.  Bengazi was just one of a string of failures by the Obama administrtion in the mid east.  The middle east is worse off today than it was four years ago.  Not even close.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    [/QUOTE]



    Lay off the video.  It has already been proven to be a false narrative.

    The video you should be focusing on is the one from the drone.

    But, let's also remember not to get lost in the weeds on this.  Bengazi was just one of a string of failures by the Obama administrtion in the mid east.  The middle east is worse off today than it was four years ago.  Not even close.

    [/QUOTE]

    The video is a false narrative under your stilted view of things.  It was the issue when the demonstrations broke out and this atack occurred.  Selective memory...

    And really the Middle East is worst under Obama?  You prefer the dictatorships of Quadaffi and Mubarak?  Odd ideals you have...  I guess yo adjust them if a liberla is in office.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    [/QUOTE]


    The video is a false narrative under your stilted view of things.  It was the issue when the demonstrations broke out and this atack occurred.  Selective memory...

    And really the Middle East is worst under Obama?  You prefer the dictatorships of Quadaffi and Mubarak?  Odd ideals you have...  I guess yo adjust them if a liberla is in office.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sir,

     

    There is no (ZERO) proof (your favorite word) that there was a demonstration regarding the video.

    This video BS is only obfuscation to divert attention away from the failure of Obama to protect our citizens despite months of warnings and the utter failure to send in troops when this terror attack started.

    The video excuse was designed and falsely propagated to appease his Muslim 'friends'.

    He, rice and Hillary actually made it seem the extremeist towelheads had every right to kill because of the video.    

    Where does the buck stop?

    [/QUOTE]

    Provide your proof.  But you can't.  Just keep ranting.  Mindlessly.

    And thanks for the "towelhead" comment.  Further proof of your inherently racist attitude.  I wonder if any conservatives here will take note...

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    Apparentlythe biggest mistake of the Obama administration in all of this was under-estimating the complete and total ideological ignorance and sheer stupidity of the whacko wingnuts.

    The CIA's talking points read as follows:

    • "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
    • This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
    • The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."
    • CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

    However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence.

    Another source, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points, tells CBS News the "controversy this word choice has caused came as a surprise."

    "The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."

    "Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."

     

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    Keep in mind that DNI means James Clapper, the clueless wonder of the intelligence community.  Sounds like Obam is just teeing him up to take the fall.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    BWAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

     

    Now the whacko wingnuts are sourcing Drudge on this.

    This is the same Drudge which ran a BETRAEUS headline.

    The cognitive dissonance of these imbeciles is hilarious.

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts