Petraeus Speaks

A

azmastablasta

New member
Rep. King: Petraeus Testified al-Qaeda Element Removed From Rice's CIA Talking Points

by John Nolte 16 Nov 2012, 7:16 AM PDT
Republican Congressman Peter King just exited the closed-door hearing with David Petraeus to update the media, and his description of the ex-CIA Chief's testimony contained more than one bombshell.

For starters, King said Petraeus told them that the CIA talking points meant for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's Sept. 16 round robin of five Sunday network news shows, originally contained the information that there was evidence al-Qaeda elements were involved in the attack. These talking points were then altered by the White House or someone close to the White House.

Obviously, what we now know is that in their final format, the talking points in question focused exclusively on the false idea that the September 11 anniversary attack was motivated by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

King also said that the testimony from Petraeus today was much different than his original testimony on Sept. 14. Today, Petraeus told the committee that he knew "almost immediately" that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called Ansar al Sharia and that the "overwhelming amount of evidence said this was a terror attack." According to numerous reports, in his original testimony, Petraeus focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as the prime motivator for the attack.

So, at least according to Rep. King, we have Petraeus amending and/or contradicting his original testimony, and the news that somewhere in-between the CIA and Susan Rice, removed from the CIA talking points that insisted there was "no evidence" of a pre-meditated terrorist attack was the information about Ansar al Sharia.

This leaves us with two new and very important questions that must be answered:

If he did, why did Petraeus change his testimony?

Who changed the CIA talking points, removing the evidence an al-Qaeda element was likely involved in the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/16/Rep-King-CIA-Talking-Points-Removed-Al-Qaeda-Element
 
tn,that remark could in no way be racist.He is not realy black anyway,he has only 10% negro blood.The rest of him is 50% white and 40% Arab(muslim type).
 
Gonna get interesting with Petreaus not having to worry about losing his job anymore. Especially with the careers of so many others, whom he has probably worked with at some point in time, at stake. I think Obama is fixing to find the sh1t gets really deep, if you stir it enough, then get thrown in.
 
It is only more disheartening to see the denial of the blatantly obvious on the liberals' part, in blind defense of their party lines. If as they say ignorance is bliss, you liberals must be one happy bunch of SOBs!
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nailed it Rocky
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71It's sad to see such palpable desperation for a manufactured scandal.

What's sad is 4 Americans are dead due to negligence by our leader! Plain and simple.
 
pahntr They keep saying the one guy painted the mortar position with a laser.It seems to me like he would not have done that till just before he expected the C-130 gunship to fire on them.It would seem to me then he felt sure they were overhead and was expecting them to fire and they did not,because they were ordered to stand down.All this could only be because those on the ground knew stuff that someone wanted to never get out,and the best way to do that was to let them die.Does this sound reasonable or would I be missing something.
 
He wouldn't have painted the target without something in the area. Usually, lazing will expose the operator. They're also using a laser designator on their primary weapon, so that's out of the fight.

No one would paint a target unless it was moments before an expected delivery, from above. There was something overhead, otherwise, he wouldn't be worried about lasers in target in leu of bullets.
 
Well....this is another example of too much time in the conservative echo chamber.The public will quickly tire of this desperate attempt to mine political profit from tragedy.
 
4 Americans are dead because of a coordinated terrorist attack. Republicans should be ashamed of such a disgusting and shameless attempt to score political points from tragedy. This whole witch hunt will backfire. The Republican party desperately needs sensible leadership.
 
No, HunterBear, Democrats should be ashamed of trying to coverup lies told to the American people about the deaths of those 4 Americans.

Republican politicians in Washington may be politicizing it, but as it looks now, the entire coverup of their deaths by the Obama Administration was a political calculation.

What is worse, smelling blood in the political waters and going after Obama over this, or the actual coverup and campaign of calculated lies orchestrated by the Obama Administration?
 
Originally Posted By: IversWhat is worse, smelling blood in the political waters and going after Obama over this, or the actual coverup and campaign of calculated lies orchestrated by the Obama Administration?

You forgot who you were asking there.
 
Don't worry. Obama won't be impeached. He could axe murder the Pope in the Oval Office and you Democrats would claim it was self inflicted while shaving.
 
No blood in the water. Republicans will end up looking desperate and disrespectful for politicizing the deaths of Americans. There are legitimate questions about the initial assesment of the situation. These questions will be resolved. This story will be done very soon. Of course, it will bounce around the conservative echo chamber for atleast 4 more years.
 
You keep babbling about Republicans "politicizing" the deaths of 4 Americans by seeking the truth about their deaths and what the administration knew about their deaths and when they knew it.

I find that odd. What I find "politicizing" about their deaths was the series of lies told by the administration to keep their foreign policy creds intact for an election. If that is not "politicizing" those 4 deaths, I don't know what is.

Something that is becoming even more obvious as this conversation goes on is that there are some Democrats who are so dishonest to their very bones that they SUPPORT any lies, no matter how disgusting, so long as those lies are told to protect their party.
 
Back
Top