Ruh-Roh! CIA Director Patraeus Tosses Prevaricator-in-Chief RIGHT Under the Bus on Benghazi Lies:

Reaganite Republican ^ | October 27, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

'We weren't the ones who denied military support 

to Americans under attack in Benghazi'

Ah, what a tangled web we weave-  and guess you should have realized you'll never own this patriot, Barry:
________________________________________________________________________________

Weekly Standard via Weasel Zippers:

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: 'No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.' 

So who in the government did tell ;anybody' not to help those in need? 

Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. 

There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

________________________________________________________________________________

Yet Obama still claims -entirely to the contrary-
that he 'gave an order' to secure our personnel-
another stinking lie:
________________________________________________________________________________

Gateway Pundit:

Obama told Denver’s WUSA TV this in regard to the Benghazi 9-11 terror attack, 'I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.'

Tonight however, Bing West, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, told Greta Van Susteren, 'If that actually happened the way President Obama said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, 'Can we see the order?' because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.

Obama just got caught. He lied about his securing our personnel in Benghazi. And now the world will know about it...

________________________________________________________________________________

Hillary of course has already lawyered-up, and her guy is saying in no uncertain terms that Obama's the one that ignored repeated pleas for added security in Benghazi over the previous months.

In Denver Dear Leader also purported that 'This election has
nothing to do with Benghazi'- so I guess if we all can just agree on that, this whole unpleasant thing can go away until after the election.

HAH HAH HAH ha ha ha ha ha hyuk-hyuk guffaw snort-chuckle.

________________________________________________________________________________

DougRoss@Journal   Gateway Pundit   Weasel Zippers   FB

[marktwain]

Patraeus is effectively saying that there were ZERO calls for help from Wood or Doherty or any one else. [That doesn't ring true.]

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Patraeus is saying that no one at the CIA told people not to give aid. Calls for help could have gone to others than the CIA. The CIA could have said "we need higher authorization" and were denied it from the POTUS". So there are at least these two other possibilities.

Calls for aid would normally be to the U.S. military, not the CIA. See Travis McGee's excellent posts on this subject. Patraeus seems to be pointing a finger upstairs at the POTUS with this declaration.

[Fai Mao]

I bet it was aborted because Obama had been arming Libyan rebels and didn't want his illegal operation revealed

[DesertRhino]

He parroted Obamas line about the video protests getting out of hand. He ONLY spoke up when the story fell flat and it was revaealed that CIA was told to stand dowm.

He knows the truth, but only gives little hints now. He could tell the whole rotten story, but he still protects Obama. He’s corrupt or a coward.

Our government lies to us as often and enthusiastically as any totalitarian enemy we scream about. Guys like Petraeus are right in the thick of it. And leaving grunts behind a machine gun with no fire support is nothing new to Petraeus, he used the same rules in Afghanistan. Men have died there many times, screaming for arty or air only to have it denied because the enemy was in a building.

This is the most evil thing you can do, is refuse fire support to someone in a firefight.

Where’s that old Norman Rockwell poster. The man manning a machine gun. “Lets give him enough,,,and on time”.

[DesertRhino]

“Regrettably sometimes the brass has to wait to show brass.”

Those men hammering away behing the gun, fighting for their lives didn’t have that luxury. They lost thier very lives, but we cannot expect “brass” to risk their job? Their time to show brass was chosen for them. So was Petraeus’s, and he shrunk away from his duty.

Petraeus is a coward. When he saw those men abandoned to die, he should have immediately told the story, no matter WHAT the consequences to him and his career. Instead, HE also pushed the story that it was a spontaneous riot due to the video. If that story would have flown, he’d still be silent.

This is why our senior officer corps is becoming universally hated. They expect balls out loyalty and effort from the ranks, but they must be allowed to carefully shepherd their precious career.

[Calvin Locke]

When and why—...—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

The more the lies and denials continue, the more I lean in favor of the "conspiracy theory" that BHO setup the ambassador to be taken hostage so BHO could "justify" the release of that terrorist back to Egypt without all the blow-back.

[DesertRhino]

“Petraeus: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need”

Translation, “we were watching and did not see anyone we judged to be in immediate need”.

[PGalt]

BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!

TREASON - aid, comfort and weapons to enemies and pre-meditated lies in the form of direct attacks on amendment 1.

TREASON like this republic has never seen before.

TREASON...in real time...right now...continuous...ongoing.

[DesertRhino]

“Patraeus seems to be pointing a finger upstairs at the POTUS with this declaration. “

Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. Is there ONE person in our national government, military or intelligence agencies who is not an abject liar?
Why is this level of dishonesty towards the American people tolerated? A half truth is a full lie.

Almost every single word they say to us is rife with lies. Every press conference, every statement, every speech. All of it.
This incidently is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a constitutional republic.

Does anybody believe that people like Petraeus, Obama, Hillary, Beohner, Mitchell, Justice Roberts simultaneously believe we cannot be told the truth, yet hold the people in reverence politically? NO, they see themselves as our Platonic guardians, and that we do not need information because we do not make decisions.

[marktwain]

“He parroted Obamas line about the video protests getting out of hand.”

The only report of Patraeus saying that comes form a Democrat party hack, who says that he said it in a closed House of Representatives briefing. We have Senators saying he never said it in their Senate briefing.

Patraeus cannot defend himself on this because he is not allowed to reveal what was said in the briefing's.

I strongly suspect that the Democrat representative is the one doing the lying to assist in the coverup.

If I am wrong, please correct me, but that is the only way that I have heard this.

[Crimson Elephant]

The last group Obama needs to take on is the CIA. Whoever might know the reality of his past the CIA is at the top of the list with, probably, Mossad and Putin...maybe the Chinese.

[TomGuy]

Calls for aid would normally be to the U.S. military, not the CIA.

Woods and Doherty were contract employees for some intelligence agency to track down missing surface-to- missiles. That agency was probably the CIA. If it was the CIA, they apparently requested to engage 2-3 times and were told to 'stand down.' They eventually disobeyed and ran into the fight.

If they called for help, they would be calling 'their' boss. They would expect 'their' boss to act accordingly.

So, who gave the 2-3 'stand down' orders? Someone with a pay grade above Woods and Doherty had to.

Patraeus's comment basically says no one gave a 'stand down' order.

==

There are so many versions, so much misinformation and conjecture (partly by design), that it will take a full fledged investigation to ever know the truth. And even then, we might get a muddled PR/PC piece like the 9-11-01 Commission Report.

Every day we seem to get more revelations and more questions.

[Just mythoughts]

So who in the government did tell ;anybody' not to help those in need?

Well, until the inventory of what got taken by these homicidal robbers is released we cannot be sure who had the most to gain/lose by intervening or not.

[DesertRhino]

NO excuses. He knows that the American public is being lied to and is hiding behind the skirts of “classified briefings” to advance the lie.

If he knows the truth, and refuses to let the disinfecting sunshine in, he is as bad as the liar in chief, maybe worse. Those SEALs risked and lost their lives. And this coward won’t risk his career or a criminal charge to expose the treason that killed them? He isn’t fit to even discuss them.

[Lady Heron]

But you did lie congress and tell them it was all about a video that had only 1,000 views at the time of the attack.

[marktwain]

If they called for help, they would be calling 'their' boss. They would expect 'their' boss to act accordingly.

If they called their boss, and their boss was a contractor, maybe it was their boss, the contractor, that told them to stand down. A contractor is not in the CIA chain of command.

I have worked with military contractors. They tend to be pretty risk adverse. Maybe that is what happened.

[Lady Heron]

Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. Is there ONE person in our national government, military or intelligence agencies who is not an abject liar?

So far the State Department and the CIA have told you exactly who made the decision in the most diplomatic way they can. If this had been Republican administration this would have been blasted from the rooftops of every news organization in a constant stream of condemnation.

It is rather amazing in terms of history what both of these organizations have said. This is no longer Hillary covering her behind and pointing fingers. The CIA statement even gave cover for the DOD....nobody is falling on their sword for this President and they have just told the world.

[no-to-illegals]

FRiend, it is difficult to display brass when dealing with a cic saying no. I'll leave my comment at the aforestated, and wait for more. Not ready to give up or surrender. Coward run. Am not running. To know what happened, and what the truth is ... sometimes brass is overruled. At this point I would not doubt the brass was told no by zer0. It would fit into the pattern displayed by zer0. Generals do not hate their Men, otherwise the Men would hate their Generals. Now the cic (named zer0) could be an entirely different matter when it comes to hate. Will wait FRiend. This story is not going away.

[RFEngineer]

“Typical top brass military politician”

Thank you for expressing my sentiments exactly. It’s not enough to “not deny them aid”. The right answer is to do the right thing and help them, then after you’ve saved them show up first thing in the morning at the White House with your resignation in hand.

If he was unable to help them, he should still resign because he was forced to uphold and support an abhorrent policy.

It is the duty of any honorable man or soldier in situations like this to do the right thing first, follow orders later. This government, and a large portion of our military command do not seem to be populated by honorable men.

The only two men to ‘do the right thing’ first and follow orders later in this story are the two SEALs that died, if I’m to understand the reports correctly.

How any of these guys can work for and execute the orders of this President that sacrifices Americans in favor of just about anyone else is beyond me.

Profiles of Cowardice.

[marktwain]

The only two men to ‘do the right thing’ first and follow orders later in this story are the two SEALs that died, if I’m to understand the reports correctly.

The reports are the four men from the annex went to help the Ambassador or "mission" or "consulate" or whatever the final designation comes to be. Two were killed. That means that two are still alive.

[no-to-illegals]

Sometimes one must be on the inside to get the truth to those in the field. This is maybe a time where having someone on the inside is more beneficial. I do not know, but when going up against someone who hates the Military as this zer0 crowd does, I would prefer there be someone inside feeding information to those on the outside. I do not know this is what is taking place though it could be, as well as it could not be. I'll take someone on the inside anytime over someone on the outside. That is just me.