Skip to comments.Ex-CIA Chief Petraeus Grilled Over Ambassador Rice
Posted on 11/16/2012 1:10:05 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
...Democratic senators who emerged from the hearing said Petraeus' testimony supported U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Rice was speaking from talking points prepared by the CIA and approved by the intelligence committee.
"The key is that they were unclassified talking points at a very early stage. And I don't think she should be pilloried for this. She did what I would have done or anyone else would have done that was going on a weekend show," Feinstein said. "To say that she is unqualified to be Secretary of State I think is a mistake. And the way it keeps going it's almost as if the intent is to assassinate her character."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said Petraeus' testimony "clarified some of the issues that were still a little cloudy" over the attacks.
Chambliss said Rice "went beyond" the talking points. "She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al Qaeda. Well, she knew at that time that al Qaeda was very likely responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
It sounds like a menu; Petraeus Grilled over Rice.
The Dems would whore out their own mother for political cover.
Over Ambassador Rice?
No, I don’t think I’ll ever get over Ambassador Rice.
LOL! That was my first thought as well.
“Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern.” Chesterton
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
re: “The key is that they were unclassified talking points at a very early stage. And I don’t think she should be pilloried for this.”
From what I am reading, Petraeus is saying:
1. That on the very day of the attack, the CIA knew and reported to all governmental departments, including the White House (and Susan Rice), that the attacks were led by A.Q., and not some spontaneous eruption of the “video”.
2. He does not know who changed the CIA’s talking points from A.Q. (Al Qeida) being the instigators to the report that Rice made to five different network shows all saying that it was the “video” that was responsible.
So, either Rice is incompetent and doesn’t keep up with the latest intel reports she receives, or she’s just lying or agreed to lie for Obama.
None of these things commend her to hold any kind of government office, even so, she is not really the one we’re after - it’s WHO told her to say what she said!
Obama told her to say that! She gets direct marching orders from Obama.
You think shed go on national TV before an election and say
Something NOT Obama approved??
Who’s idea was it to alert the Pakistanis that there was a video?
Rice’s talking points were White House talking points ion the issue - not the CIA points, which called it a terrorist attack by an al qaeda affiliate.
Secondly on the point of the lives of Americans Peter King confirmed that the topic was discussed and that he could not comment at this time.
(Right after Petraeus testimony)
Peter King (committee chair) would not comment on the aspect of who called for back-up and who denied cross-border support for the 41 Americans in Benghazi.
It seems to me that if Petraeus exonerated Obama, that King would come forward with that story, or the dems in the room would.
Now, if Petraeus said Obama left those Americans to die at the hands of terrorists, then that information would be handled in a very special way. It would not be leaked by the Dems, and the republicans would have to have several meetings on what to do with it.
THIS IS A CASE OF THE DOG (DEMS) NOT BARKING!
All of a sudden all of this is about Susan Rice.
I smell a rat. Or at least a sacrificial lamb.
It seems that nobody is interested anymore in whether agents at the compound or the annex called for military assistance.
It seems the WH wants to bury that aspect of the story - just coincidentally the one that could most damage Zero.
Now it’s all about who changed Susan’s talking points.
If Rice goes down in flames - and maybe that was the point of Big Barry’s tough talk at the presser the other day - then the lapdog media will congratulate themselves on how tough and nonpartisan they are and consider the rest of the story closed.
Rice is merely Bamster’s lackey. He is right about one thing: we should be going after HIM, not her. She’s a distraction.
Yeah, it's called "Borking." You guys invented it.
Not far off since everything about this is fishy and a pilaf of it.
Here’s probably how it went down.....
“Hello Susan. Please come in and sit down.”
“Hello Mr. President. Hello Valerie.”
“Susan, we need to buy some time on this Benghazi business. Can you help us?”
“What’s in it for me?”
“Well, you know Hillary is leaving as Secretary of State?.......”
“What can I do to help, Mr. President?”
“We need you to go on some Sunday news shows and tell them this Benghazi business was all because of a bad video.”
“Secretary of State, ehhhhh? How many news shows?”
“Five? OK, but I need some extra money.”
“Valerie can handle that.”
“What time do I go on?”
You punch the button, and commands worldwide KNOW what’s going on. In real time. So does DC.
0bama knew in minutes. It is someone’s JOB to tell him.
0bama is the only person to authorize cross-border authority.
He is responsible for everything. From no help to stand down to talking points to lies. HE IS. As President, this is ALL his.
There are others, yes. But the buck stops at the Resolute desk.
IOW, she's perfect for Obama's cabinet!
This is all total bull sh!t...
No one will answer for Benghazi...just like Ft. Hood....
RINOs will cave...there is no stopping the Kenyan...
He WON, dontchaknow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.