And just why does that not... 
surprise me?
Well, Bendy, here in Spain they say it takes a media whore... 
to know one--
Posted on 11/17/2012 6:34:03 AM PST by raptor22
Scandal: David Petraeus' admission that he knew almost immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack raises anew our question: Was he coerced into telling lawmakers Sept. 14 that it was caused by a video?
The tangled web that is Benghazi-gate got more tangled Friday when, according to Rep. Peter King, David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that "al-Qaida involvement" was suspected — but that the line was taken out in the final version circulated to and by administration officials.
"No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," King told reporters after the House hearing on Friday. "His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," he said.
King, a New York Republican, said he told Petraeus he had a "different recollection," referring to his Sept. 14 briefing to members of Congress that the attack on our Benghazi consulate was a "flash mob" gone wild in response to an Internet video.
"The original talking points were much more specific about al-Qaida involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the al-Qaida affiliates line "was taken out." By whom and for what reason remain open questions.
This begs the question, which we raised in an earlier editorial, of whether Petraeus' Sept. 14 briefing was influenced by an administration that had knowledge of his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
If he knew almost immediately it was terrorism, as his CIA station chief reported in the first 24 hours, why did he reportedly parrot the administration's false narrative three days later?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
trason=treason
True. But I believe it's the law that the CIA reports only to the DNI. That's Clapper. That's to who the assessment would go.
#3 It is the CIA’s business to know who, where and why their assessment was changed and to clearly make it known it ceased to become their assessment at that point.
Actually, once the CIA gives their assessment to the DNI, it isn't their responsibility to know who, where and why their assessment was changed.
Bingo! Something smells funny about the guy who protected Bill Clinton back in 1998, Peter King.
Yep - Middle East looking good!
At Benghazi the Arabs threw Obama under the bus. What did he expect? Arabs do not have to keep a bargain with a black man. Arabs buy and sell black men.
In a scandal looking more and more like Fast and Furious, information is coming out revealing what may be the real reason why the Obama administration refused to provide military support to save Americans in Benghazi. Obama was terrified the public would find out that American weapons had been given to Libyan terrorists, who then used them against Americans in the attack.
Most blacks are ignorant of that.
Illiteracy, stupidity and subservience runs the day within islam.
Fox News excerpt: 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."
Could Obama be the one who is being blackmailed?
Isn’t that how Valerie controls him?
Probably. That’s exactly how this regime behaves.
Whether he knew or not is the smokescreen. The big question in the Bengahzigate cover up is who made the decision, and why it was made, not to send a timely military force to the besieged American embassy. I don’t recall any discussion of that yet. Where are the new Woodward and Bernsteins?
Yeah Israel will probably have to nuke..
Only Obama can answer why help was withheld. Has anyone asked him why help was withheld?
And just why does that not... surprise me?
Well, Bendy, here in Spain they say it takes a media whore... to know one--
Why was this legitimately posted IBD EDITORIAL removed from topic “Editorials”? Where does one report YOUR abuse?
What’s next? Could it be boxcars, wooden bars of soap, and showers for all?
Buy ammo!!
it means their necks are tired from bobbing for dollars...
That article...which is good...got posted:
Benghazi Betrayal May be a Cover-Up of American Weapons in Hands of Terrorists
I think Frank Gaffney hits the nail on the head. Basically, Obama is likely guilty of treason by way of giving aid and comfort to the enemy:
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/the-real-reason-behind-benghazigate/
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.