13 May

Was David Petraeus blackmailed over Benghazi?

                                       

CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus Resigns After Affair

The Benghazi affair is on fire and it could possibly go nuclear soon.

It is now very clear that the Obama regime scrubbed the truth from the Benghazi talking points.

Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It’s unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agency’s warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

It was the Obama regime who politicized Benghazi:

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.” With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft “talking points” leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.

We are still speculating as to who altered the talking points but there are hints that Steven Hayes might know:

[O]ne previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points…

Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​—​including State, Defense, and the CIA​—​as well as senior White House national security staffers…

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan…

The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows.

The blame for the changes, clearly done at the White House level, was then dumped on the CIA:

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

It is also well known at this time that David Petraeus was astonished to see how his assessment was freed of the truth:

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

Petraeus has even called the altered talking points “useless.”

Petraeus twice briefed members of Congress and on both occasions the event was closed to the public. The first assessment for Congressional members came a few days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi and the second one came on November 16, 2012.

Note that it was back in November when the disparity in initial and final talking points was discovered:

House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters that the original CIA talking points regarding the attack clearly attributed the incident to al Qaeda affiliates, but that the talking points changed after being vetted by several agencies, including the Justice Department and State Department. “No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final talking points,” King said.

“The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out,” King continued. Originally, he said, they were “much more specific on al Qaeda involvement.”

Apparently Petraeus offered two versions of the Benghazi situation:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

That’s according to U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, who spoke to reporters after a closed hearing in the House, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes.

King said Petraeus’ testimony differed from an earlier assessment the former CIA director gave lawmakers just days after the September 11 attack, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“He (Petraeus) … stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14,” King said.

“The clear impression we were given (in September) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a terrorist attack,” he said.

What changed in between the first briefing and the testimony?

Paula Broadwell.

A timeline:

Benghazi attack: September 11, 2012
Petraeus briefing for Congress: September 14, 2012
Presidential election: Novermber 6, 2012
Petraeus resigns: November 9, 2012

Was David Petraeus being blackmailed to toe the line? Here’s why it could be possible. The FBI discovered that Petraeus was having an affair with his biographer and when he was confronted with the evidence, Petraeus asked that he be allowed to “step down” on his own.

The CIA Director being under investigation is no small deal, yet the White House did not notify Congress:

Some lawmakers wonder why the FBI didn’t notify the White House and relevant congressional committees earlier – before the election – that the CIA director was under investigation.

“The FBI should have had an obligation to tell the president,” Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King (R) said Sunday on CNN. “It just doesn’t add up.”

“I have real questions about this. I think the timeline has to be looked at,” Rep. King said. “I’m suggesting there’s a lot of unanswered questions.”

King also says Petraeus still should testify before his committee this coming week on the Benghazi attack.

That the FBI did not notify Obama of an investigation of the Director of the CIA is simply and utterly incredulous. Eric Holder knew of the affair since late summer 2012:

The FBI apparently was sitting in two inquiries. One involved the extramarital affair uncovered between Petraeus and biographer Paula Broadwell. The other involved “inappropriate communications” between lead commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen and Jill Kelley, a woman tied to the Petraeus scandal.

Though the FBI investigation that stumbled onto Petreaus’ affair had been underway since as early as June and Holder knew since late summer, the Justice Department did not loop in Director of National Intelligence James Clapper — who then told the White House — until last Tuesday.

“Last Tuesday”- election day. So Obama learned of the affair on Tuesday.

Or maybe it was Wednesday.

Still, the timing of the notification was curious. The Justice Department reportedly told Clapper about the probe on Election Day. Clapper told the White House the following day, and Obama learned the day after that, according to administration officials.

Holder knew of the investigation of the Director of the CIA and he didn’t tell Obama? You believe that only if you are a complete idiot.

One wonder whether more scrubbing has taken place than was know.

At the Washington Times, John Curl warns of the re-emergence of David Petraeus:

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

Very possible.

Petraeus is known to be a team player yet the White House holding Petraeus’ affair as a sword of Damocles over Petraeus’ head would help assure of his participation. He was conveniently kept quiet until after the election and then resigned almost immediately afterwards. Once Petraeus resigned in shame over the affair anything he had to say about Benghazi would then be tarnished. Now he and the CIA serve as the Obama’s patsies for the removal of the truth from the talking points.

It’s all too convenient.

By the way, have you heard about the IRS scandal?

That’s also way too convenient.

doug squirrel

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Global Regions, Libya, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, May 13th, 2013 at 7:53 am
| 2,769 views

48 Responses to Was David Petraeus blackmailed over Benghazi?

  1. Dc says: 1

    Amazing isn’t it….that an illicit affair that happened previously is too much security risk for the former CIA director to tolerate…but a President getting BJ’s in the WH is ok and doesn’t pose the same risk.

    The entire cover for the WH and State on this was that the CIA gave them those points and they just repeated what was given to them..save for one word change that was immaterial to the story line. Some of us who are mildly observant happened to notice that this didn’t make sense with the way things transpired from the very beginning. And the revelation that the points were “edited” or changed….then brought a statement from the WH (Jay Carney) after denying that such changes were made….finally admitted that yes…they did ask for one change…and it was only one word, etc. THAT…is where the trouble for them really started. There is enough evidence email and otherwise to show that the WH and State “knew” there was more editing than that which happened prior to the talk points final version. They lied. And they got caught. The question is..doesn’t anybody care? Or ws Hillary right….”what difference does it make”?

    As to comparisons with Iraq intel….it’s one thing to use intel that is wrong. And you can argue how that wrong intel was produced before an event happens. It’s another thing…to produce intel AFTER the event that differs entirely with what just happened and suggest it’s somehow the same. Ridiculous.

    I think the next version of this from the WH is going to have to be that …these kinds of inter agency review and editing of material for public consumption is normal and nothing new which is why they didn’t bother to mention the other 12 revisions; that the people involved in that review were tasked with their respective depts to handle it and did so without direct knowledge of the president and/or Clinton; and the changes they made were at their own discretion and not in any way directed by the president or hillary; and that the pres and hillary only received briefing on the final points…which in turn were signed off on by the CIA. It was at that point..that Hillary suggested changing the word consulate to compound. (ie., the “one” immaterial change). This will cover Obama/Hillary so long as no evidence turns up (emails, etc) that show direct acknowledgment that either one of them participated in the editing process directly or were briefed on it. A generic email to their office doesn’t mean anything. They have “others’ who read that stuff.

    You heard it here first. The people in those emails are going to fall on their swords and say they did this on their own and deny that Hillary or Obama was briefed on any of it save the final version. The bull in the china shop at that point is Patraeus who they can now counter is a disgruntled, disgraced former head who’s changed his story already.. Then they’ll start the smear machine. But, I’m not sure just how much further you can smear a man who’s already been smeared and drug through the mud. Patraeus is going to have to explain why he gave the initial briefing that toed the party line on WH talking points….then reversed himself later. It makes him an easy target for the idea that he’s changed his story. And it depends on how well Panetta and others in the Intel/CIA can keep the people in their agencies who know better and are perhaps “bitter” about the way things went down…quiet. I think we should start looking for those people to start getting pressure and/or demoted or sent overseas somewhere.

    As far as the bigger scandal in this cover up…which is what’s happened to all the people who’ve tried to bring this story out….it’s apparent that nobody cares. Certainly democrats don’t care. The republicans who claim they care are giving lip service to the ruined lives and careers of those left in the wake of this. But sadly I believe that they, along with the families of those who fell, are going to be left behind in this battle to get to the truth. And I also think you need to keep in mind….democrats/liberals don’t care about their own parties scandals or corrupt politicans. They vote them back in!! (ie. Rangel). It doesn’t matter what they do, or how blatant it is. They’ll vote for them to stay in power and keep screwing us all. On the other hand….we’ve seen RNC members thrown out on their ear in disgrace for everything from toe tapping in a bathroom stall, to inappropriate comments, sexual affairs, and quid pro quo deals that wouldn’t even make Nancy Pelosi blush.

    i think the IRS scandal is a bigger deal for Obama politically. And the fact that he’s simply not talking about…is outrageous. Particularly considering his acerbic tone towards conservatives and his class warfare policies. What did he expect his young liberal minions to do if not take him to heart? Sharpen up their elbows? And use the power for the federal gov for the “cause”.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Obama just got a question about the Benghazi talking points and how/who changed them.
    He obfiscated marvelously.
    He wiggled all around giving an answer without giving an answer on that issue.

    ReplyReply
  3. Randy says: 3

    @Nan G: Wiggled like a bowl of yellow jello?

    ReplyReply
  4. Jeff D says: 4

    Republicans really have turned into a pack of cartoon characters. The Benghazi coverup theory is flat out stupid.

    ReplyReply
  5. Budvarakbar says: 5

    @Nan G: So — mwhat else is new?

    ReplyReply
  6. Buffalobob says: 6

    “but a President getting BJ’s in the WH is ok and doesn’t pose the same risk”. Well of course not Hillary told us that the story of Bill using Monica as a humidor was just a vast right wing conspiracy. The sad thing is that so many progs both in and out of the media fall for this line of BS and parrot the WH talking points. It’s almost as if they attended a super secret meeting last week chaired by Jay Carney

    ReplyReply
  7. Budvarakbar says: 7

    @Jeff D: Yes — especially since it was so obvious from the get-go >> and they still threw the election – starting with the second “debate”.

    ReplyReply
  8. Budvarakbar says: 8

    @Buffalobob: The media is totally controlled by the same forces that control the demo-commie-RAT party >> and probably have “the goods” on several RINO’s — esp McLame.

    ReplyReply
  9. Dc says: 9

    On Meet the Press, Pickering admitted that they had been given a certain “focus” for their hearing and that looking into the talking points or what happened “after” the attacks was not something they looked at.

    Obama and others…insist that this “has all been looked into” and point to this same review board to suggest that the talking points were already looked into and they found nothing wrong.

    The press scratches their head and moves on. Perhaps we need Candy Crowley to interrupt the president and remind everyone that he did in fact continue to push the meme of a video protest for TWO WEEKS after he used the word “terror” in his speech on day two.

    Obama is even using the wrong timeline as to what has happened (he’s reversed it suggesting that he started out with the video thing..then it evolved to a direct militia/terrorist attack from AlQueda affilated group later. What actually happened was backwards…he used the word terror, then sent Rice out with talking points pushing the video story to challenge the press reports that this was a successful terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11. And continued to do that for two weeks…well after it had already been established that whatever earlier reporting they had about some connection to a protest was wrong.

    Obama obviously does NOT want anyone looking into that. And the problem with more people coming forward is…every time they do…it reminds people that his story doesn’t make sense and he has to go back out and throw pixie dust in everybody’s eyes, hold secret press corp meetings to get “background briefing” etc.. wave his hands, and remind everyone that this “has already been looked into” and there is nothing to it. Move along sheeple.

    ReplyReply
  10. Mully says: 10

    @Jeff D: Care to explain why you think it’s stupid?

    ReplyReply
  11. Scott in Oklahoma says: 11

    Patraeus got thrown under the bus, and he STILL hasn’t told the truth. And he got the Herman Cain treatment, women crawl out from under rocks to help the opposition under the bus, then disappear…

    And we still haven’t heard from the 30 witness/victim/survivors… and the beat goes on.

    ReplyReply
  12. Marla Hughes says: 12

    One person keeps being left out of any analysis: John Brennan. The sycophant who was the true head of the CIA during Petraeus’s tenure and now is in fact it’s Director. He didn’t answer to Petraeus, but to Obama and only to Obama. Just as Susan Rice didn’t answer to Hillary, but was given a job that was raised to Cabinet level in order to bypass the normal command structure. Brennan’s boss was supposed to be Petraeus and Rice’s boss was supposed to be the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
    So, Obama was/is able to bypass protocols with his own personal ‘shadow Cabinet’. Who do you think the underlings would pay more attention to: the formal Director of the CIA or the one who has the President’s ear 24/7?

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: The IRS & Benghazi….What Did Obama Know And When Did He Know It? | Flopping Aces

  14. Dc says: 13

    Very good point Marla

    ReplyReply
  15. I never believe that DAVID PETRAUS left because of his affair, IT did not fit,
    HE is a GENERAL loved by the TROOPS, he is a big wheel and a HERO, having been on the stage of war,
    made his skin hard enough to take any heat, one COLONEL
    OLD TROOPER, TIM COLLIER said HE WOULD TRUST HIM WITH HIS LIFE, one day to us,
    I did suspected there was the OBAMA pressure there for him to say what OBAMA wanted,
    and as reluctant as he was he did, because he took him as always as his commander in chief which he swore to obey
    as a CAREER MILITARY,
    but he could not live with himself longer as a CIA TOP GUY looking at the WHITE HOUSE CORRUPTION and lies, he had missed while in AFGHANISTAN and now in front of him and dragging him in the falsehood
    so to protect OBAMA, and he quit out of shame not for his affair but for having to repeat the lie of OBAMA his long time COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
    and came back to the SENATOR KING with the truth WHICH HE DIDN”T HAVE TO,
    but as a self made WARRIOR he felt compelled to tell the truth to KING, he had chosen to be trusted,
    that’s my thoughts and I stand with it.

    ReplyReply
  16. Laughing at LibTURDS says: 15

    @Jeff D:

    Republicans really have turned into a pack of cartoon characters. The Benghazi coverup theory is flat out stupid

    Jeff, you REALLY are too stupid to post anything on the internet. Go back to DailyKos with the rest of the losers.

    ReplyReply
  17. Larry Johnson says: 16

    @Buffalobob: Why should Hillery
    care if Bill was using Monaca during the day…She was sleeping with her at night……

    ReplyReply
  18. Jeff D says: 17

    re: #15

    Losers?

    It wasn’t the democrats who lost an election to an incumbant you claim is a total incompetent. It seems like there might be something wrong with that theory, too.

    ReplyReply
  19. Tom says: 18

    Once Petraeus resigned in shame over the affair anything he had to say about Benghazi would then be tarnished.

    Which is such a shame, because he obviously has that elusive final piece of the puzzle, the proof to the theories you’ve been cobbling together. But now that his reputation is “tarnished”, because he slept with someone out of wedlock (Lawd!! where or where are my fainting pills?) apparently, the theory goes, no one will believe him. Not Dr John. Not the Republican members of Congress. Not the fact AND moral driven Right wing blogosphere. No, Petreuas will have to die with his secret. It’s not like he could become a Right Wing icon overnight if he just told us what he knows.

    ReplyReply
  20. Scott in Oklahoma says: 19

    @Tom: He was probably treated to the same threats that bought the silence of the 30 witness/victim/survivors, their families and friends… And what could possibly be so important to this administration that they would say whatever they said to buy that silence?

    ReplyReply
  21. Budvarakbar says: 20

    @Marla Hughes: And do not forget there seems to be a lot of info out there re Brennan being a closet moo-slime >> anyone got any real info on Rice’s religious (or pretend) religious leanings?

    ReplyReply
  22. DrJohn says: 21

    @Tom:

    He already is a right wing icon and now another victim of Obama fascism.

    ReplyReply
  23. Budvarakbar says: 22

    @Larry Johnson: You are probably correct! >> but then again the real question maybe should be: Who was using who?!

    ReplyReply
  24. DrJohn says: 23

    @Jeff D:

    Not incompetent- thoroughly and totally dishonest.

    ReplyReply
  25. Lehmon says: 24

    I have to agree with Michelle Bachman, that the Leak about the IRS, although true, is meant to be a distraction from Benghazi. The administration fears the deeper questions that will arise if everyone gets past the “talking point lies” and asks the important questions: 1) Why the “stand down order” was given to a special ops team in Tripoli that could have been there in an hour. (My belief is as the attacker that was held for a period in Egypt supposedly said it was because the plan was for the attackers to actually be kidnappers, they where supposed to kidnap Chris Stevens, and let Obama negotiate a trade for the “Blind Sheik” being held in Gitmo, just in time to make Obama look good just before the election. This went wrong when the two defenders came over from the CIA complex up the road against orders, and started returning fire, making the “kidnappers” think they had been double crossed.) 2)Why was Chris Stevens at a “consulate” in Benghazi anyway, instead of the US Embassy compound in Tripoli? And why was an Arab group hired as security there instead of US Marines? (Was he there making deals to send weapons to Syrian rebels? And if so, were the guys hired as security, the same guys that were supposed to kidnap Stevens and instead killed him because they thought they had been double crossed?) These are the questions they are afraid of, in the White House.

    ReplyReply
  26. Tom says: 25

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    So they blackmailed him with the affair, but the affair is out… that’s not very good blackmail. Pulling the trigger on the threat means he now has no disincentive to keep the secret; rather he has the overwhelming incentive of revenge, amongst others incentives, to let the secret out. So what is holding his tongue now? More blackmail? The imagination really does run wild.

    ReplyReply
  27. Tom says: 26

    @DrJohn:

    He already is a right wing icon and now another victim of Obama fascism.

    Then why doesn’t he do something about it? Like tell the world that Obama blackmailed him? What on Earth is holding him back? All the ODS drones might not ask, but anyone who has watched one b-movie sure knows when a plot has a hold the size of the Grand Canyon in it.

    ReplyReply
  28. Scott in Oklahoma
    HI,
    I think HE was intimidated, and surprise OBAMA when he left, THEY never expected him to quit
    after the BENGHASI failure of OBAMA, he just left OBAMA cold claiming the affair,
    but that was to spare him more of shame he OBAMA already was in,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  29. drjohn says: 28

    @Tom:

    The election’s over, isn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  30. Lehmon
    you know I heard a bit of it around the after attack
    and the way you explain it ,I find it make a lot of sense,
    so that tell us who order the STAND DOWN, must be OBAMA,
    that his gimmick style as real as a spit.
    I had heard that STEVEN was returning from a meeting with some one in TURKEY
    about a deal on weapons given probably sold to the REBELS in SYRIA,
    so your talk is even more plausible, and that transaction would have had very few involved in,
    OBAMA secret way of doing his murky transactions,
    we know he will do anything and sell anything for money that is his torment,
    he always want money,

    ReplyReply
  31. Tom says: 30

    @drjohn:

    Which has what to do with the General’s continued silence?

    ReplyReply
  32. Scott in Oklahoma says: 31

    @Tom: And the good liberal soldier again missed the question. In addition to Petraeus, why haven’t the others come out? Out of loyalty to Obama? Or out of fear of reprisals. After seeing the initial treatment of Petraeus, it became obvious that the Obama administration has no fear of backing up threats. And Petraeus probably decided it would be in his own best interest to shut up before something else happened.

    ReplyReply
  33. drjohn says: 32

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    Or perhaps wait until he’s summoned to testify.

    ReplyReply
  34. drjohn
    I think so too.

    ReplyReply
  35. TOM
    why did he not tell he was blackmail,
    why is OBAMA still on the THRONE after so many failures,
    the answer is that the CLASS of those who know he should be taken out but they have too much class to do it until the extreme end,
    THAT IS WHY

    ReplyReply
  36. Tom says: 35

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    And the good liberal soldier again missed the question. In addition to Petraeus, why haven’t the others come out? Out of loyalty to Obama? Or out of fear of reprisals.

    I didn’t miss the question. I’m just not going to speculate on your pure speculation, because it’s pointless. How can I present an argument against something you’ve imagined? If you have any concrete facts that prove threats, blackmail or coercion, then please present them. Until then you’re inventing entirely fictional scenarios to match a desired outcome and you can’t expect someone to argue against that; or I should say, the only argument is ‘please show me your factual evidence”.

    ReplyReply
  37. Tom
    you have nothing to show yourself,
    why do you expect anyone to show you anything,
    after all you are not in the secret here,
    but you would not tell what you find with the WHITE HOUSE talking head.
    found with their feet in the crap.

    ReplyReply
  38. Marla Hughes says: 37

    @Budvarakbar:
    I don’t think Brennan is a closet Muslim so much as a sympathizer of radicals, especially Islamists. I’ve heard his speeches and he sounded like more of an apologist than a true believer to me. Which can be worse. I know moderate Muslims. I don’t know any apologists for radicals that aren’t harmful to me and/or my nation in their actions and words.

    ReplyReply
  39. Marla Hughes says: 38

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    The meeting with the Turk was at the consulate. He left minutes before the attack happened. Because there is only one main ‘drag, he would have had to see the barricades being set up and the armed men moving up the street toward the consulate. He didn’t call Stevens and warn him. No one has asked him why he didn’t as far as I know.
    re: Others who have questions about why the attack happened. I have questions myself. Such is who were the two ‘Arabs’ in the CIA annex right before the first attack? Were they prisoners as some Benghazi residents said or were they rebels from ‘some place else’ being armed with the ManPADs that were being collected (and supposedly destroyed) by Doherty :http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-doherty-navy-seal-killed-libya-intel-mission/story?id=17229037
    My next question is when the attack occurred, what happened to the ManPADs that had been collected? The consulate and the annex was left abandoned for 17 days before the FBI was finally sent in. Everyone had full access, including news crews and locals.
    Another question: Was Brennan in charge of more than the drone program? I’d like to see him put under oath for more than one reason.

    ReplyReply
  40. Richard Wheeler says: 39

    @DrJohn: Petraeus,who I consider a great leader,is a victim of only one thing—his little head doing his big head’s thinking. He’s free to tell the truth as he knows it. I believe he will. Chips fall where they may.

    ReplyReply
  41. Marla Hughes
    hi, wow, you have new things and those we did not hear before,
    and they mean a lot to the resolution of the BENGHASI,
    and it made me remember that someone mention around here
    that some guy was taking pictures, how , what camera what kind of camera, still or moving video,
    I do not know these answers, the person did not say,
    you sure have some good clues, I hope it get taken by HANNITY or one of the FOX,
    best to you. thank you for the infos,

    ReplyReply
  42. Marla Hughes
    I just recall a fact coming from someone while I was watching the attack at FOX,
    those 2 ARABS might have been the supose security provided by the LIBYAN LEADER.
    he did not want any AMERICAN SECURITY,and send some who ran away when the saw the ALQAEDA
    pointing his weapon at them they ran away pleading for their innocence,
    it was mentioned at the time of the attack.
    just a thought
    bye

    ReplyReply
  43. Richard Wheeler
    PETRAEUS was a GREAT GENERAL, admire by his troops
    he was taking the protection of his MILITARY AT HEART,
    and a big head he had in order to have that CAREER he had to be super good.
    no one can say anything wrong about him,
    he also was a human been, and his personal busyness belong only to him,
    I strongly think he came public to tell his affair , because OBAMA try his intimidation on him
    after BENGHASI, so he told his story publicly to counteract the threats, to silence him.

    ReplyReply
  44. Marla Hughes says: 45

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    No, the security was for the consulate. The CIA annex was a mile away and definitely wouldn’t have had ‘in country’ protection.

    ReplyReply
  45. Marla Hughes
    hi,
    well we have not answer your QUESTION, what where they doing there?
    why would they be there? where they waiting to have a paid request
    to go and get something for the people in the annex,
    or are they the ones who wounded the one still in hospital
    badly wounded, which no one talk to yet,
    well maybe KERRY did, but he did not say about his conversation,
    then how else would he be wounded, if it’s far from the CONSULATE,
    oh, might they have been with THE TURKISH WHO had business with STEVEN the AMBASSADOR,
    AND INVITED BY THE ANNEX TOP GUY, who would be RICK?
    bye

    ReplyReply
  46. Pingback: Is it time for David Petraeus to become a Whistleblower? | Grumpy Opinions

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>