Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.

[muttly]

Well, well - check this out:


The truth shall set you free.

This is from CNN and not from FNC. I thought only FNC ran stories like this? hahaha

 

[RLENT]

More on Johnny Boy's butt-hurted-ness:

John McCain’s Scheduling Error

Poor John McCain. The senior senator from Arizona, former presidential candidate and general Republican big-man-in-Washington was so busy on Wednesday complaining about President Obama’s handling of the Benghazi mission killings that he just didn’t have time to do his actual job and attend a hearing on the Benghazi mission killings.

Mr. McCain has said he wants to get to the bottom of what he seems absolutely certain was a catastrophic bungling of the Libyan situation by Mr. Obama and his team. He is proposing holding “Watergate-style” hearings on the matter, with lots of witnesses and of course, lots of television cameras.

But yesterday, when the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee received a classified briefing on the Benghazi issue, Mr. McCain was absent. His spokesman Brian Rogers blamed a “scheduling error.”

Politico reported that Senator Susan Collins was a bit miffed at Mr. McCain for not showing up and said it was unnecessary to create “a brand new committee” just for Benghazi “when we already have the Senate’s chief oversight committee, plus the Intelligence committee, examining this very important matter.”

Slate pointed out that Mr. McCain’s absence is a problem because Senate rules preclude other Senators from talking to him about the closed hearing. I’m not sure anyone is going to follow that rule, but it just underscores the risk that Mr. McCain is taking of looking buffoonish over the Benghazi killings.

Or, I should say, looking buffoonish again, because the whole thing is a reminder of how in 2008 he “suspended” his campaign against Barack Obama and dashed off to Washington during the financial meltdown. All he did was cry “emergency” and make everyone realize that no one in Washington, including in his own party, really cared what he had to say about the crisis.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky also missed the closed meeting on Benghazi, but managed to find the time for a TV interview in which he said he had big questions about what happened. “I don’t know enough of the details,” he said.

Apparently, McCain (along with Lindsey "Yes-that-certainly-is-my-toe-you-hear-tapping" Graham) is missing the finer optics of the recent electoral results ... given their nearly unquenchable predilection for continuing to beat up on a well-thought of, younger, black woman - one who merely served as public spokesperson for the administration ...

Next shoe to drop: Maybe that McCain had the same intel "talking points" as Rice did, at the same time she had them.

Be sure to stay tuned for the next episode of the John McLame Clown Show ...

 

[RLENT]

This is from CNN and not from FNC. I thought only FNC ran stories like this? hahaha

Actually it's from Breitbart - and it's their own special chowderhead flavor of mangling of original sources ...

But thanks Chumley - for clearly demonstrating to all of us the precision of your observational powers ... or complete lack thereof:

Mention of CNN in article = article is from CNN ...

Just in case it isn't readily apparent to you by this point - possibly due to being permanently stuck in the spin cycle - allow me to share the following premise:

... one news outlet's characterization of what another news organization has said or reported, isn't necessarily the same thing as what they actually said or reported ...

I know that's a really tough one to pick up on, but please do give it a try ...

And yes, BreitFart does in fact reside in retard-ville, along with Focks Nooz ... I believe they may actually be next door neighbors ...

 

[wvcourier]

Meanwhile.....the Palestinian holocaust continues....Izraeli Troops headed for Gaza now....its over for Palestine. They dont have a chance.

Sent from my Teddy Ruxspin

 

[RLENT]

Barbara Starr's original article - minus all the "spin" from BreitFart:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus knew “almost immediately” after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi it was the work of Ansar Al-Sharia, a loosely-formed group that has some members sympathetic to Al Qaeda, according to a source who has spoken to him and is directly familiar with his analysis of the situation.

According to this source, Petraeus says the stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the group was behind the attack. But a separate stream of intelligence also emerged indicating ongoing riots in Cairo over an anti-Islamic film might have motivated the attacks.

The source says there were some 20 different intelligence reports indicating the Cairo film might be responsible. The CIA eventually disapproved all those reports, but not until after Petraeus’ initial briefings to Congress in which he discussed all possibilities, the source said. “All those other reports got disproved over time,” the source says Petraeus told him.

Petraeus also believes confusion has emerged over two separate intelligence questions. First, who was responsible, and second what was the motivation of the attackers.

Petraeus’ aim in testifying, the source said, is in part to clear up “a lot of misrepresentations of what he told Congress initially. He wants to clear it up.”

Petraeus is expected to tell Congress he had no direct involvement in the talking points UN ambassador Susan Rice used in the days after the attack. Petraeus developed unclassified talking points that were approved by the intelligence community the source says. Rice’s talking points may have used some of that information but were separate from what Petraeus provided.

Well now ... all that highlighted stuff up there sure seems like a sorta relevant aspect to "the story" ... 20 reports eh ? ...

Hmmm ...

Gee ... I wonder why the Turkey Choker left those parts out ... since BreitFart did at least cover some, if not all of it ...

It was obviously intentional - since he had to actively choose what portion of the BreitFart he excised for inclusion in his post here ...

Source: Petraeus wants to clear up misrepresentations of what he told Congress

Chuckleheads ... Gawd how I do love 'em ...

 

[RLENT]

Well, well - check this out:

Thanks - I did ...

What I found was that you were highly selective in what parts of the article you choose to quote and post ...

If anyone asked me to characterize that, I would have to say that some of the following might possibly come into play: disingenuous, a lack of candor, cherry-picking to support a misleading narrative, inherently dishonest ...

Now mind you, that little list isn't all-inclusive - I could probably expand on it considerably ... if you would like ...

The truth shall set you free.

Well, yes ... that is actually true ... which I'll admit is somewhat out of character for ya ...

BTW - you know that "shriveled limpness" you're presently feeling ... from down below ?

Get used to it ... because after Petraeus testifies tomorrow, it may actually become a permanent condition ...

 

[RLENT]

Oh gee ... lookey here ... here's those CIA "talking points" that were given to Ambassador Rice:

CIA talking points for Susan Rice called Benghazi attack "spontaneously inspired" by protests

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

Rice, who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on "Face the Nation" (video) on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack "began spontaneously" - suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.

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."

Brennan noted in her "CBS This Morning" report that Rice is also a member of President Obama's cabinet, and thus privy to his daily intelligence briefings, which may have provided further information or context on the Benghazi assault prior to her television appearance the following morning. The details of the cabinet intelligence briefings are not known.

President Obama said Thursday he had not made a decision on who to nominate as Clinton's replacement, but he blasted senior Republican lawmakers' attacks on Rice as "outrageous." Sen. John McCain and others have vowed to block a Rice nomination over her handling of the Benghazi information.

U.S. officials have since said the attack on the offices in Benghazi appears to have been carried out by an Islamic extremist group based in eastern Libya, with at least low-level connections to al Qaeda's branch in northwest Africa.

CIA talking points for Susan Rice called Benghazi attack "spontaneously inspired" by protests

 

[RLENT]

Meanwhile ... the Palestinian holocaust continues ...

Indeed ... and ya know what started this latest round of violence ?

Two actions on the part of the Israelis:

1. The murder of a 23 year-old mentally-ill, drugged man.

2. The wanton murder of 7 Palestinians - including 3 children, who were playing football - along with injuring another 52 individuals

Considering the above, it's not entirely surprising that someone might decide to lob a few rockets in the direction of Israel or their illegal settlements ...

Izraeli Troops headed for Gaza now ...

The modern state of Israeli is becoming exactly the thing which lead to it's creation ... it is near being the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany, in it's early stages ...

its over for Palestine. They dont have a chance.

Neither did the Jews in Germany ...

 

[21cExp]

It was a pretty good question,which Obama really did not answer specifically. It's not like Ed Henry had a hour long Robert Frost like interview with him.

Just as a point of accuracy, I think you may mean David Frost, who interviewed Nixon. Robert Frost was a poet.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

 

[muttly]

Just as a point of accuracy, I think you may mean David Frost, who interviewed Nixon. Robert Frost was a poet.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

Oops. Yes ,thanks for the correction. I sometimes gets those two's names mixed up.

 

[muttly]

Oh lookie here. A line taken out from the CIA talking points. Barry: "Pssst, lets take that Al Qaeda line out before we send our usefull idiot Susan Rice to go on the five talk shows Sunday." Sneaky,sneaky.
Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says | Fox News

 

[RLENT]

mutt,

You must really love the public humiliation ... a little sick perhaps, but hey - whatever fills your twinkie ...

Oh lookie here. A line taken out from the CIA talking points.

Ahhh ... accepting the characterizations of a bloviating partisan hack with a huge ego - indeed, one that was himself involved in funding "terrorism" (Ireland) - about what Petraeus said, or what might have happened (or why) might not be the brightest course of action ... in fact, it might well be considered to be a sign of extreme mental retardation.

Fact of the matter is, Petraeus' original testimony characterized the attack in terms of both the video as being a possible cause, and that it was/could be a terrorist attack. This has been reported before. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Peter King, being a disreputable partisan hack with a huge ego (much like John McLame and Lindsey "Yes-that's-my-toe-tapping-that-you-hear" Graham), now lies about that very fact - saying his recollection of Petraeus' original testimony differs from what Petraeus himself says it was - because that is what is required to further exploit the matter politically.

The fact of the matter is that Petraeus' own characterization of his original testimony is confirmed by Democratic members of the committee - apparently their memories are a little better than King's.

Democrats, though, suggested Republicans were taking the whole issue out of context.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said claims the talking points were changed are "completely wrong." Besides, he said, the affiliation of Ansar al-Sharia, the militant group suspected in the attack, to Al Qaeda is still being examined.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the discrepancy can be attributed to the classified talking points that some saw versus the unclassified version that others, like U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, used.

The Repuglicans are becoming increasingly desperate - they lost the election huge and now the only thing they apparently capable of is continuing to sling baseless partisan crap ... rather than acting like adults and get to the business of solving this country's problems and actually governing ...

Sure sounds like a winning "strat" for the future to me ...

McLame's "joint committee" will never happen (but he may actually accomplish the rather impressive feat of remaking himself from a respected war hero into a complete and total ***-clown ...)

You guys lost ... huge ...

Get over it.

 

[bobwg]

Rlent seems to be a hack for the dems

 

[bobwg]

Lost huge what a crock of bs

 

[RLENT]

The clown parade continues - with another installment of Focks Nooz "Chucklehead Theater":

Fox News mangled huge Benghazi story

Fox News may need a refresher course on how to run a correction. Its signature story on the Benghazi conflict, after all, carries a consequential amendment, though the public wouldn’t know it. The change, too, could call into question one of the network’s high-profile exclusives on the goings-on in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11.

Jennifer Griffin’s Oct. 26 Fox News story depicts heroic warriors fighting against a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) leadership hampered by incompetence and indecisiveness. As Griffin tells the story, CIA security officials at a Benghazi annex that night received a call for help from the nearby U.S. diplomatic mission, which had come under siege from hostile Libyans. The security forces at the annex, in the account, agitate to get a move on, the better to deliver immediate assistance to U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and other Americans.

But they’re instructed to “stand down” in the terminology of the Fox story, one that has gotten ample rotation in the news echosphere in recent weeks. Griffin vests her account of the tension with key details:

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

That’s the text of the Griffin report as it stands now on the Fox News website. Yet it’s not the same text that debuted with the story on the morning of Friday, Oct. 26. A source who closely monitors Fox News passed along that text, which reads a touch differently. Bolded text added to highlight difference:

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”

Various web sites that aggregated the Fox report on Oct. 26 bear witness to the difference in the story. The upshot: When Fox originally published its exclusive on Benghazi, it put Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL who was assisting with security in Libya, at the CIA annex as part of the team that mounted the initial response to the attack.

Gigantic problem with that assertion: Doherty was nowhere near Benghazi at the time that the attackers first assailed the dipolomatic mission. He was in Tripoli, more than 600 miles away, and would reach the CIA annex many hours later, just in time to participate in the pre-dawn battle that claimed his life.

Fox’s Glen Doherty amendment shows up in its TV work as well. Have a look at the video embedded at the top of this post. It’s from an early broadcast of Griffin’s story on Fox’s air. Here’s a key portion, as articulated by Griffin:

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEALs, were over at the CIA annex at about 9:40 p.m. when the first shots were heard at the consulate, where the ambassador and his team were taking fire. I’m told that they radioed to their higher headquarters that they wanted permission to go and help the ambassador...At that time they were told by their higher-ups to “stand down.” They waited approximately an hour, they requested again to send Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and other members of that team to help out at the consulate. They were again, for a second time, told to stand down...

Now have a look at the Fox News report from later that day (embedded below). The money portion of that segment features Griffin saying this:

Sources on the ground in Benghazi tell Fox News that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military backup during the attack on the consulate and annex was denied by their CIA chain of command. Twice members of a CIA element at the annex one mile from the consulate, that included former SEAL Tyrone Woods, were told to “stand down” when they requested permission, starting at approximately 9:40 p.m., to aid the ambassador’s staff. About one hour after the attack began on the consulate, those operators, including Woods, ignored orders and went anyway.

Text bolded to highlight subtraction: No Doherty in this version.

Unclear is whether Fox News ever issued a correction on its original report that Doherty was front and center at the CIA annex, instead of in Tripoli. In the segments that this blog has reviewed, there is no evidence of one. An inquiry to Fox News’s PR shop on this matter failed to prompt a response, an experience consistent with an ever-growing database of precedents. Last week after a Pentagon briefing, the Erik Wemple Blogger asked a Fox News reporter active in the Benghazi oeuvre for an interview on the stories; he declined and stipulated that his reasons for declining were off the record.

There are a couple of ways to view Fox’s mixup on Glen Doherty’s whereabouts on Sept. 11. The charitable version is that Doherty’s location at the time of the attacks is a detail of small consequence to the sequence of events that Fox News has laid out in its reporting. Less important than who was there at the time of the initial attack, after all, is the behavior of the CIA chain of command, which Fox News depicts as bumbling.

Under the less forgiving interpretation, Fox’s misstep on Doherty is an infection that plagues the entire report. If Fox News cannot nail the proper location for a key player in the conflict, then how can we possibly trust it to nail particulars like “stand down” orders and the like? Consider, too, that from all indications, Fox News published its Oct. 26 showstopper without first seeking official comment from the CIA. Perhaps if it had engaged more with CIA headquarter prior to publication, it could have sidestepped the Doherty problem.

Whatever the case, don’t expect Fox News to start equivocating. On the day the report surfaced, Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Griffin just how good her sources were. “As good as they get,” she replied.

Fox News mangled huge Benghazi story

 

[RLENT]

Lost huge what a crock of bs

I think the Electoral College score was 322 vs 206 ... 'nuff said ...

 

[RLENT]

Rlent seems to be a hack for the dems

Nah ... a hack is someone that misrepresents, twists, and otherwise perverts the truth for partisan advantage.

I don't do that ...

However there certainly are a few of 'em about ... keep your eyes open ...

And BTW ... I am a registered Republican ... and have been for the last 30+ years ...

 

[bobwg]

Nah ... a hack is someone that misrepresents, twists, and otherwise perverts the truth for partisan advantage.

I don't do that ...

However there certainly are a few of 'em about ... keep your eyes open ...

And BTW ... I am a registered Republican ... and have been for the last 30+ years ...

yea right your the one thats sounds like a sore looooooser

 

[RLENT]

yea right your the one thats sounds like a sore looooooser

Heheheh ... I didn't lose ... I actually won ... in all sorts of ways ...

Can you say the same ?

 

[RLENT]

More Focks Nooz spankdown:

Fox Covers Up Acknowledgement That Petraeus Was OK With Benghazi Talking Points

Fox News is whitewashing Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) acknowledgment that the Central Intelligence Agency approved the talking points that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for an early assessment of the September 11 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

For two months, Fox has sought to scandalize Rice's September 16 interviews on the major Sunday news shows. During those interviews, Rice said that an investigation into the Benghazi attack was under way but that the current assessment of the intelligence community was that the attack was a reaction to a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was inspired by a controversial anti-Islamic film.

On Friday, Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of the CIA, offered testimony before a closed congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

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.

[video]http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2012/11/16/27786/fnc-americalive-20121116-king[/video]​

King's comments are a fatal blow to the phony controversy over Rice's interviews: Rice never ruled out the possibility that the attack was an act of terrorism, and what she said was consistent with the public assessment approved by the intelligence community -- including the CIA.

Silence is the only way Fox can keep its scandal alive.

Fox Covers Up Acknowledgement That Petraeus Was OK With Benghazi Talking Points