BenghaziGate: “Video?” “What Video?”

General David Petraeus, Former Director of the CIA, may very well be the one person that this Administration can not intimidate into silence, concerning Benghazigate. reports on yesterday’s closed door questioning of the General:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

“To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and why. … I’d say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out,” King told Fox News. “That, to me, has to be pursued.”

Petraeus left Capitol Hill around noon, after testifying in private hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees. In his wake, Republicans and Democrats battled over whether his testimony should raise more suspicions about the administration’s handling of the attack.

King and other Republicans indicated they still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the strike.

“No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points,” he said.

Considering the lies and misdirection that have been given out by Obama and his minions  since the murder of those 4 Americans at the Consulate in Benghazi, Rep. King, getting the truth out of that bunch will be as hard as getting Lindsey Lohan to stay sober.

Here is a timeline, published by Fox News which cleary demonstrates the Administration’s explanation of how the events on 9/11/12 happened has “evolved”:

White House

President Obama, speaking in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, referred to “acts of terror” as he condemned the attack. But later that day, when asked in an interview with CBS whether he thought the attack was terrorism, Obama said “it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about.”

On Sept. 14, Press Secretary Jay Carney said “we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” He continued to link the attack to protests over an anti-Islam film.

On Sept. 19, National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen testified that the strike was a “terrorist attack.”

On Sept. 20, during an interview with Univision, Obama again declined to label the attack terrorism. “I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information,” he said.

However, that same day, Carney acknowledged it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Obama and the White House would later claim they labeled the attack terrorism from the start.

State Department

On Sept. 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. was “working to determine the precise motivations and methods” of the attackers, while citing the protest in Cairo over the anti-Islam film.

The following day, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the department was “very cautious about drawing any conclusions” about who was behind the attack and what the motivations were.

On Sept. 16, despite emerging evidence that the attack involved at least some pre-planning, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice went on five Sunday shows to claim it was spontaneous.

“The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The next day, Nuland was asked if the department regarded the strike as terrorism, and she said “I don’t think we know enough.”

On Sept. 21, Clinton used the “terrorist attack” label to describe the assault.

Intelligence community

On Sept. 14, Petraeus gave a briefing to lawmakers in which, according to sources, he stressed the link between the anti-Islam film and the Libya attack — and played down the involvement of terrorist groups.

On Sept. 28, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued a detailed statement. In it, the DNI said initial information led the office “to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day” in Cairo, and that information was provided to members of the Executive Branch and Congress.

But, the office said: “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.”

On Oct. 19, the story changed again. An intelligence official circulated a revised version of events, acknowledging “extremist” elements were likely involved but claiming “the bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

On Nov. 16, Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill in closed-door hearings that he suspected from the start that the attack was terrorism. According to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., he told lawmakers that the CIA’s original assessment pointed to “Al Qaeda involvement,” but that the line was later removed.

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell

All the American public wants, is the truth, Mr. President. Those 4 men and their families deserve no less.

Proverbs 6:16-19

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Until he comes,



Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “BenghaziGate: “Video?” “What Video?””

  1. backwoods conservative Says:

    “…getting the truth out of that bunch will be as hard as getting Lindsey Lohan to stay sober.”

    You do have a way with words.

  2. Gohawgs Says:

    The obamanation chilled while Americans were being killed…

    Unlike what happened at the end of the movie “Rules of Engagement”, no one will be held accountable for withholding a video or for perjuring themselves or for lying for weeks about what really happened. And, this (mis)administration knows it…

  3. heirsinhope (@heirsinhope) Says:

    “A proud look, a lying tongue” – CHECK

    “Hands that shed innocent blood” – CHECK

    “An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” – CHECK

    Feet that be swift in running to mischief” – CHECK

    “A false witness that speaketh lies” – CHECK

    “He that soweth discord among brethren.” – CHECK

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: