So: who changed the talking points?
From FoxNews.com:
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.
Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
If the “talking points” were changed from an al Qaeda direction to that of a shabbily-produced YouTube video available for viewing literally months before the attack on the Benghazi Consulate — and they were not changed by Petraeus or the CIA — then who changed them and why?
I believe the bulk of thinking Americans can draw their own logical conclusions: for the sake of politics.
Mr Obama has done his level best to downplay terrorism. The “T” word was not even allowed for a time. Additionally, if his military sequestration was to have any justification and validity, then there must be fewer tumultuous events involving violence and terrorism in other countries, instead of more.
Friday, testimony from former CIA Director Petraeus indicates the CIA knew “almost immediately” that the Benghazi attack was linked to an al Qaeda-sympathizing group, and wasn’t the result of some spontaneous popular uprising over an inane video as typified by the Obama Administration.
Now — grasp this if you will — because UN Ambassador Susan Rice is being questioned due to her non-stop attendance on all the news shows the weekend immediately following the Benghazi Consulate assault (indicating the sole cause as spontaneous outrage over a so-called “offensive” video), those persons are sexist and racist:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican senators’ angry criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over her initial account of the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Libya smacks of sexism and racism, a dozen female members of the House said Friday.
Apparently, however, those “dozen female members of the House” are unfamiliar with the meaning of racism, as any non-public-school educated child knows that the terms is inapplicable in these circumstances.
It all makes sense now; the timing of the outing of Petraeus’s affair, an attempt to discredit him at a time when hearings were near.
Imagine that. The clouds are parting.
BZ
