Petraeus takes the wind from conspiracy theorists' sails

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/20...sts-sails?lite

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...ya-attack.html

Quote:

---

The names of terrorists believed to be involved were removed for reasons of national security, and all of the relevant intelligence agencies signed off on the edited text. As Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) explained to the AP, "[I]n an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved."

Susan Rice then relied on the intelligence community's findings to update the public five days after the attack, and everything she said reflected the best information available at the time.

And before Fox News suggests Petraeus is still lying in order to protect the Obama administration, let's not forget that Petraeus is no longer part of the Obama administration. He's a private citizen, free to speak his mind -- and in this case, everything Petraeus is saying is consistent with everything the White House has said. Petraeus' remarks have left the right's conspiracy theories in tatters.

---

Maddow reports this on her site. I am sure this will be something she will cover in detail this evening.

What's clear is that Petraeus peed in McGollum's oatflakes at the meeting, which included iphone video presentations of the actual attack.

So you guys, can you finally put Benghazi to rest now?

Seems to take the wind out of the sails of the "NO to RICE" fleet.

Isn't Patreus Republican as well so he's got no reason to defend Obama admin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngolaZee

Isn't Patreus Republican as well so he's got no reason to defend Obama admin

---

He was one of the favorites to run in 2016 for the GOP. He is indeed.

^Which is why he cheated on his wife. It's usually a Republican thing. I'm just surprised it wasn't a man.

Well now they will just turn on him and claim he is lying to protect the administration because maybe they promised him something behind closed doors.

Actually, I think he was torpedoed by the Republican right wing because he wasn't going to follow the party line.

Susan Rice gave different talking points than the talking points points provided by the CIA. Petraeus said that the attack was a terrorist attack -- Susan Rice said it wasn't. When did that change?

Did she change the talking points herself or was it someone at the Justice Dept, State Dept, or the White House?


I still don't understand why she, as the UN Ambassador, who even appear on TV to talk about this.

See /\

Even when the reports indicate otherwise and Petraeus himself put the right wing conspiracy theorist case to bed, they won't stop talking about it. Susan Rice isn't in charge of the CIA and didn't have the most up to date information.

Petraeus may have done one right thing in the recent string of fuck ups that have followed him throughout his career. All right wingers can harp on about is Susan Rice. The person they deem worthy for their kangaroo court. Guilty before proven innocent.

Petraeus has absolutely no reason to defend Obama at all, and he could have told another story. But... he told the truth because he was under oath and could face prosecution if he lied. This really puts it to bed. It's one less thing we have to hear about.

Well, shit! I've spent the past 2 hours reading "Susan Rice Next Secretary of State ?" and here y'all are over here setting the record straight.
Well, at least it's not as long as the other thread.

interesting how facts get seen differently by different people

petraeus said he knew it was a terror attack from the get go
that the reference to terrorism was in the original talking points

so how does that help the obama administration?

how is that a positive thing?

we withheld the terror play so that al qaeda wouldn't think we were on to them?

LOL

yeah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Eagle

Well, shit! I've spent the past 2 hours reading "Susan Rice Next Secretary of State ?" and here y'all are over here setting the record straight.
Well, at least it's not as long as the other thread.

---

Yet. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

petraeus said he knew it was a terror attack from the get go
that the reference to terrorism was in the original talking points

---

Read what he said again please. It's rather clear.

He had absolutely no reason to defend the Obama administration. Keep up the spin.

Jesus christ, the President said the next day that it was a terrorist attack. This is a non issue.

Even that asshat Peter King has now said that there was no real issue after attending the closed door hearing. I am reading that Petraeus was less than kind to the Reps that are trying to turn this into a political issue, so behind closed doors, as a civilian, I think it's likely that Petraeus gave them a dressing down.

There were videos presented from cell fones that back up the presidents story, and you can't argue with that.

The only people that want to make something of this are the people with an axe to grind.

And people with no hope left on their baseless arguments

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn’t know.

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpu-CTORdXo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BostonPirate

Jesus christ, the President said the next day that it was a terrorist attack. This is a non issue.

Even that asshat Peter King has now said that there was no real issue after attending the closed door hearing. I am reading that Petraeus was less than kind to the Reps that are trying to turn this into a political issue, so behind closed doors, as a civilian, I think it's likely that Petraeus gave them a dressing down.

There were videos presented from cell fones that back up the presidents story, and you can't argue with that.

The only people that want to make something of this are the people with an axe to grind.

---

He said the attack was because of a video. He mentioned terror in his speech but was not specific.

The guy cannot say Islamic Extremists.

Distort, distort, distort... that's what is going on here.

Nixon would have loved you during watergate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BostonPirate

Jesus christ, the President said the next day that it was a terrorist attack. This is a non issue.

Even that asshat Peter King has now said that there was no real issue after attending the closed door hearing. I am reading that Petraeus was less than kind to the Reps that are trying to turn this into a political issue, so behind closed doors, as a civilian, I think it's likely that Petraeus gave them a dressing down.

There were videos presented from cell fones that back up the presidents story, and you can't argue with that.

The only people that want to make something of this are the people with an axe to grind.

---

As only a general who came up through the ranks can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BostonPirate

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

---

Bloody stinking bureaucracies with territorial hackles up -- I never even thought of that incredible tangle. They get the equivalent of tenure, and think they're God's emissaries to the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

The guy cannot say Islamic Extremists.

---

Another instance of NBS.*

















*"No Balls Syndrome"

Faux News and Republicians are taking this guy at his word now. If he was such a man of honor,then why didn't he state this when they first questioned him?
As for what he said,both sides heard what they wanted to hear. This is nothing more then partisian politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninja108

Faux News and Republicians are taking this guy at his word now. If he was such a man of honor,then why didn't he state this when they first questioned him?

---

You mean before he resigned?

Have you ever heard of the concept of following orders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Nixon would have loved you during watergate.

---

I had a reply to this but it vanished?

Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on... hence the personal attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Nixon would have loved you during watergate.

---

McCarty would have loved you during the red scare. Propaganda rules the GOP. Long live the lies of the mud party? Oh look, here's one now throwing a mudball.