27 Oct

General Petraeus: It Wasn’t Me Or Anyone Else At The CIA

                                       

America's Ship Of Fools

From one of Gutenberg's first books, “The Ship Of Fools”

In dunce's dance I take the lead,
Books useless, numerous my creed,
Which I can't understand or read.

Too Little Too Late

Apparently, no one at the CIA signed off on saving the lives of our diplomats in Benghazi. Now, that leaves just one other guy and he has a major problem with the truth. President Obama had no problem claiming responsibility for launching the attack to kill Bin Ladin from a golf course, but owning up to the truth about the death of four Americans in Benghazi is another matter entirely.

General Petraeus, Director of the CIA, has stated categorically that neither he nor anyone else at the CIA denied the requests for help from our former SEALs who were fighting to save the lives of over thirty Americans at the consulate in Benghazi. From an official spokesman of the CIA:

“No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to

the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

Too Little Too Late

Unfortunately, General Petraeus, by maintaining his silence, has participated in the presidential coverup of the Benghazi assault for six weeks. It is unfortunate for Petraeus to end his career with this tragedy, but when you participate in a coverup, you are as guilty as the perpetrator: it is time for Petraeus to resign. An officer who compromises his honor, in the guise of political loyalties will be considered to be without honor, if he decides not to resign.

Dithering:nervous indecisiveness: nervously confused indecisiveness in the face of alternative possible actions.

Our president's notorious proclivity for dithering has cost the lives of an ambassador, a diplomatic aide, and two heroes. The president's overwhelming grief over his responsibility for allowing this tragedy to take place was to attend a celebrity fundraiser in Las Vegas and party with Beyonce and Jay-Z. The president managed a pretense of hilarity and gaiety as he and Jay-Z cavorted around an ostentatious display of champagne.

Since the president falsely claimed a video was responsible for the attack and murders, the honor and integrity of President Obama is not in question; however, now that Americans have died unnecessarily in the service of their country after pleading for help from our government three times, America wants and expects honesty and integrity from the Commander in Chief.

zp8497586rq

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Benghazi Attack, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Fanatical Islam, Hollywood Limousine & Learjet Liberals, Libya, Scandals, True Heroes, War On Terror and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, October 27th, 2012 at 9:28 am
| 1,452 views

109 Responses to General Petraeus: It Wasn’t Me Or Anyone Else At The CIA

  1. retire05 says: 101

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    You cannot know how ironic/hypocritical I find your comments. For 50 years, you on the left have been bashing, smearing, denigrading, mocking, and lying about the conservatives/Republicans in this nation. You have applied Saul Alinsky’s rules as if they were put on steroids. And for all those years, Republicans played offense, not really adopting the same tactics of the left.

    In the late ’90’s, we saw the advent of the blogging world, almost exclusively on the left side of the aisle. DailyKos made its debut in 2002, with a clear mission statement of “dispelling” every conservative point. HuffingtonPost, which you seem to read with frequency, debuted in 2004, which seems to be one of those “social clubs for people who think exactly alike. The left cornered the website reading audience. It has only been in the last 6-8 years that conservatives have taken to the internet to counter what was basically left wing controlled media source. Perhaps if HuffingtonPost and DailyKos would have allowed the voices of those who disagree with them to stand, instead of banning those posters, you would have a better argument. But that was never their goal, was it, Larry?

    So now you feign shock that after all these years, conservatives have decided that trying to play by our rules, while allowing the left to play by theirs, doesn’t work. We have studied the enemy (you) and know that the only way to end the vitriol is to deal it right back to you, in spades. I, and millions of Americans, are no longer going to let the left play school yard bully without picking up a brick and slamming you with it. The days of cowering conservatives fearful of being labeled a racist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, haters of women and children, has come to a screeching end. You have worn out the cards. It’s a new game with a new deck.

    I noticed you did not request of your liberal friends to stop their lies about conservatives/Republicans. You simply directed your ire at those who have decided to fight back. Nor did you accept the truth that our current president has done more to divide this nation than any president in modern history, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, who was truely evil. You want comity? Start encouraging your fellow leftist, not complaining about others. Of course, I am sure you will say that your complaints were generic, but any rational thinking person knows that is just more b/s. I also remember how the left demanded more civility in the public debate when Gabby Giffords was shot. Remind me again how long that lasted before Obama started bashing Republicans?

    And while I am at it: have you seen the new Michael Moore commercial against Republicans? It is one of the most vile, disgusting videos, exceeding the “First Time” ad in trash factor. That is the party you support. Remember that while you demand civility.

    ReplyReply
  2. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 102

    Hi Retire,

    I wasn’t making a global comment. I was simply commenting about this particular blog. I’ve never before felt unwelcome here. Thanks to you and a couple others, I now do feel very unwelcome. Maybe Greg derives some masochistic pleasure in having his blood “boiled” (as put by my friend Bees). Not me. Flopping Aces, I hardly knew ‘ye.

    You are a Catholic, correct?

    Christians used to say that Jews shared a collective guilt for the crucifixion of Christ. Pope Benedict has thankfully declared that there is no such thing as collective guilt.

    Neither I nor Greg nor Richard are responsible for Alinsky or Kos. If you’ve got issues with Kos, I’ll again suggest that you go over there and present your own complaints. Extra points for signing your own name.

    If you disagree with what I write, then by all means criticize my writing. That’s what Nan does, and Aqua, and Common Sense, and John Galt, and even my frequent nemesis Aye, with whom I once exchanged some sharp words, but with whom I’ve since shared much in the way of rewarding discourse. And a dozen others, on an irregularly regular basis. But I am at a loss to understand why you, in particular, seem utterly incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable, and incapable of being argumentative, without dragging it down to a personal level.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  3. Richard Wheeler says: 103

    Larry Retire o5 is the face of the vitriolic Right. Fortunately, she has few allies among true Conservs. like Mata,Word and Aye. Gentlemen like Aqua and John Galt. I enjoy debating and learning from such as these.
    O5 and her kind help keep me in the Democratic fold.

    and the biggest news. Because of the storm Trump is extending his 5 million dollar offer to Obama.Why doesn’t he donate that to NYC storm victims? The face of a narcissistic, greed driven—-I’m sorry—-Republican

    Semper Fi Go Irish

    ReplyReply
  4. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 104

    More from Petraeus:

    http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/30/benghazi-early-briefings-changed-story-cia-director-david-petraeus-and-more-read-this-report-by-fncs-catherine-herridge/

    Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.

    but:

    The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.

    On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs. Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired — two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.

    Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

    Fox News is told that Petraeus was “absolute” in his description with few, if any, caveats. As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were “angry, disappointed and frustrated” that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.

    Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the NCTC referred Fox News to the Sept. 28 statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which said the assessment changed to indicate that it did not stem from a protest, but rather was deliberate and organized. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. … Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

    As for the current assessment of the Benghazi attack, a U.S. intelligence official said no one is ruling out the idea militants may have aspired to attack the U.S., though the bulk of available information supports the early assessment that extremists — with ties to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — did not plan the attacks for day or weeks in advance.

    But another source told Fox:

    One source who heard Petraeus brief also told Fox News, “I can confirm that he explicitly stated both to the House and the Senate oversight committees that members of AQIM and AAS participated in the attack in Benghazi. That assessment still stands.”

    So which is it? either?/or? Is it really clear that Obama knew from the beginning and was lying? Or was he just as uncertain then as Fox appears to be now? Based on incomplete and conflicting intelligence, from the different intelligence agencies?

    Intelligence officials have given a mixed picture of what happened that day, acknowledging that an investigation is under way. The office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last month acknowledged the strike was a coordinated terror attack, but officials have subsequently said the strike could have been opportunistic — taking their cue from protests over the film in Egypt.

    Now, what’s going on in this blog has been the characterization of Benghazi as being a conspiracy/cover-up, directed — ostensibly — by Obama himself or by Obama and Panetta (the latter of whom has a sterling reputation in various positions within government).

    The truth is that it’s all hearsay and inconsistent and conflicting hearsay, at that. The news “sources” cited by Fox don’t even tell consistent stories and these stories indicate the involvement of Petraeus (another government servant of sterling reputation).

    So what are we dealing with (I ask again). Bad intelligence? Conflicting intelligence, from competing intelligence agencies which still don’t talk to each other, the way that they should? Misinformation, intentionally planted by the intelligence agencies, to assist these agencies in terrorist identification and interdiction? Advice to Obama from his military and intelligence experts not to mount an impromptu rescue mission (which is what Panetta effectively stated)? Failure of Panetta to carry out a direct order from the President to mount such a rescue mission (as suggested by Newt Gingrich and others)?

    Or are we simply certain that Obama personally screwed up and that getting out the real facts of what happened doesn’t really matter, because he’s guilty, no matter what?

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

    ReplyReply
  5. Richard Wheeler
    you said “vitriolic’
    your not so bad you re self

    ReplyReply
  6. Nan G says: 106

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:
    So what are we dealing with (I ask again).
    Bad intelligence?
    Conflicting intelligence, from competing intelligence agencies which still don’t talk to each other, the way that they should?
    Misinformation, intentionally planted by the intelligence agencies, to assist these agencies in terrorist identification and interdiction?
    Advice to Obama from his military and intelligence experts not to mount an impromptu rescue mission (which is what Panetta effectively stated)?
    Failure of Panetta to carry out a direct order from the President to mount such a rescue mission (as suggested by Newt Gingrich and others)?

    Or are we simply certain that Obama personally screwed up and that getting out the real facts of what happened doesn’t really matter, because he’s guilty, no matter what?

    Larry, I commend you.
    You are asking the right questions.
    As long as (6 weeks and counting) Obama and his inner circle keep their mouths shut we won’t KNOW what happened in the Situation Room of the White House.
    BUT we DO know they all watched some of the live drone feed.
    We DO know what Obama said (he wanted them protected).
    We also DO know what Panetta said (he wouldn’t send in any help under the circumstances).
    How could those two men, in the same room have had 180′ opposite statements?
    Did one (Panetta) misunderstand the other (Obama)?
    Is one lying about what he said (Obama)?
    (Since if Panetta lied men WOULD have been sent in.)
    Is there some reason why Obama didn’t really tell Panetta to try to save these men?

    Real facts, as you call them, can be derived after enough people in that Situation Room testify as to what they said there.
    Generals have gone on record.
    So has the CIA.
    So has Panetta at Defense.
    Obama has said what he did, but no one can prove when he gave such an order or to whom.

    The Diplomad (an anonymous American diplomat) writes this:

    Our Benghazi facility was a half-baked operation.
    It was not a consulate.
    It was a “facility” with an ambiguous purpose, at least as far as the unclassified world is concerned.
    It had a stunning lack of even basic security despite the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya, and in eastern Libya in particular.
    The security level for our facilities in Libya was driven by the political consideration of maintaining the liberal fiction that Obama’s war in Libya had succeeded, that the “Arab Spring” was akin to our own Revolution, and that the region “loved” President Obama.
    When things fell apart on September 11, the number one concern was not to do anything that would damage that narrative.
    Blame the crisis on an obscure video; blame it on a press release by the Romney campaign; blame it on subordinates.
    Above all, do nothing that would appear to show that the Obama administration had misunderstood reality in Libya and throughout the Muslim word.

    This blogger has no more facts than anyone else, but his explanation makes sense.
    It jibes with all that we have already seen in Obama, blaming others, dithering, believing his own BS, etc.
    It’s just that THIS TIME 4 people died.

    ReplyReply
  7. Nan G
    yes that anonymous make a lot of sense to me,
    because of the unexpected hate image of OBAMA burned for all to see,
    and the the reaction of keeping silence of OBAMA,
    and the way they had GENERAL HAM AND THE NAVY COMMANDER EXPEL OF THEIR POST
    for wanting to help save the four who died,
    some mentioned the fact that the SEALS where told not to go help STEVEN ,
    revealed another aspect of OBAMA not wanting STEVEN to be help and saved
    because he had some information very damming for OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION,

    ReplyReply
  8. jeff says: 108

    @retire05:

    You cannot know how ironic/hypocritical I find your comments. For 50 years, you on the left have been bashing, smearing, denigrading, mocking, and lying about the conservatives/Republicans in this nation. You have applied Saul Alinsky’s rules as if they were put on steroids.

    Well smacked.

    Their righteous indignation is pretty pathetic. “Rewarding discourse” is code for “Nobody beat me up for my dispicable views.”

    ReplyReply
  9. retire05 says: 109

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    It is not up to me to either make you feel unwelcome on this blog, which I do not own, or hand you a verbal Welcome Wagon basket. If that is what you are looking for from me, who, I shall remind you again, does not own this website, then you have knocked on the wrong door.

    Now, I really don’t understand what my religious beliefs has to do with whatever point you were trying to make, except that faith, and adherence to it, seems important to liberals like you only when you are pushing a social agenda. And yes, Jews, as a people, were absolved from “collective” blame (I doubt the Jews ever felt guilt for something they did not do, any more than I feel guilt for slavery when my own people were persecuted by those demanding reparations, in one form or another, for slavery), but you are not for one very specific reason; you continue to support a party, and elected members of that party, that go against the very teachings you profess to subscribe to. Not once have I heard you complain about Nancy Pelosi, a Congresswoman from your own state, supporting the killing of the unborn, or any of the other numerous Democrats who also support abortion while professing their Catholicism as if it were a Purple Heart. And although you are not responsible for the writings of Alinsky, you are responsible for supporting a party that subscribes to his teachings, with the epitome of that being both Barack Obama, Jr., who taught Alinsky’s writting while a senior lecturer at Columbia, and Hillary Clinton, who wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky, and remained friends with him until the day he died. When you support those who subscribe to Alinsky’s tactics and practices, your silence about it implies tacit approval.

    Why am I disagreeable with you, Larry? Why can’t I just sing Kumbaya and tell you “Well, why can’t we just all get along?” Because I detest everything you stand for from your support of the violation of our 4th Amendment rights, to the support you lend to those you should, as a Christian, be in total disagreement with. For decades, I tried to get along with my liberal counterparts, only to be basically told that I am just too stupid to comprehend what they were trying to acheive. I watched as your party bashed President Bush, and raised the level of vitriol to a point I had never seen in my life time. And now I see it again in your party’s false attacks on Mitt Romney who, while I may not agree with everything he believes in (he’s not conservative enough for me), I believe he is a good man. Do you come here and denounce your party for the false things it says? No.

    Is there any difference between you and Greg? Yes, but only in the respect that Greg is a true believer, and willing to lie, steal and cheat to promote his political goals of a more socialized American. You, on the other hand, Larry, want to appear middle-of-the-road although your solid left wing philosphy leaks out like water in a rusty bucket. Greg doesn’t care if people like him, but you seem to be overly concerned about that.

    So like Jesus with the money changers, I have had enough. And if being not as nice as you want me to be to you is the only weapon I have in my arsenal, so be it. I have decided to adopt the same tactics that the left has been using on us conservatives for decades. Deal with it. I view you, along with the lap dog press, the left wing bloggers, and the Democrat Party, my enemies and the enemies of this nation. And no, we can’t just all get along, obviously.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>