Posted on 11/28/2012 12:04:42 PM PST by bryan999
Who within the Obama administration deleted mention of "terrorism" and "al-Qaeda" from the CIA's talking points on the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi?
It isn't the only unanswered question in the wake of the tragedy, but it's proven to be one of the most confounding.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
IIRC, a Petraeus rep said it didn't come from them. They implied that there indeed was such an order and they knew about it.
It had to come from Obama. No one else can give such an order.
That is the only QUESTIONS there is to be answered, all else is of no consequence as it will not lead to the above question. Chasing their tails on who changed what.
If they are going to continue down this path, then by golly BOMBARD them with questions. ASK so many every day, that they have no time to come up with an cognizant answer to any, scramble their brains. The more questions they ask, the more they will get confused.
Sacajaweau~: “ Get to the real BIG issue....the one connected directly with the death of 4 Americans.....Let’s talk about the “stand down” order. “
Yes !!
Perhaps the White hut was expecting 34 potential casualties ,
or prisoners to be exchanged for ...... ?
Where are all the other 30 surviving sequestered potential victims that NO ONE has questioned ?
The Only topic worthy of inquiry!
It came from the one whose name is not being mentioned in the media. It’s obvious who it is that all the king’s men and women are trying to protect. He is the one who got elected by his coloration, and who is protected by it.
To date, the media haven’t asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn’t military help get to Battleground Benghazi?
IMHO, Benghazi-Coward Obama chose Susan Rice to be the perfect deflecting smokescreen for his Impeachable blunders in the Benghazi Massacre.
Susan Rice is female, Black, and above all “Had nothing to do with Benghazi.”
Why not ignore Obama’s ‘throwing Rice’ at the gullible RINOs, and call Commie Obama to testify under oath to a Congressional Committee?
Here are my three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:
1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?
2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?
3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?
Impeach! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Axelrod’s been reeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet lately. Congress better double-down on getting people to testify, like HILLARY, for example.
NO ONE IS BEING HELD RESPONISBLE...keep talking abouth other things long enough...it will go off the front pages and be forgotten..
NO ONE IS BEING HELD RESPONISBLE...keep talking abouth other things long enough...it will go off the front pages and be forgotten..
When will our congressional bozos get around to getting her under oath?
Fact One:
1) Only the POTUS can authorize a CBA (cross border authority) command for a rescue mission in a foreign nation.
Plus Fact Two:
2) No rescue mission was attempted.
Equals Fact Three:
3) 0bama turned his back on 41 State Dept. and CIA employees refusing to issue a CBA command and went to bed so he could go to Las Vegas the next day.
---------------------------------------------------------
Three scandals.
Late Tuesday, a CIA official confirmed to CBS News that someone within the CIA made the changes. The official combined all previous explanations for the edits stating:
[lol;lol;lol--they're working sooo hard]
"The information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources, and could not be corroborated at the unclassified level; the links were tenuous and therefore it made sense to be cautious before naming perpetrators; finally, no one wanted to prejudice a criminal investigation in its earliest stages."
As Steve Hayes said on Special Report yesterday “they have put out five different versions of who changed the talking points in just the last two weeks.”
Spot on!
Well, being a devils advocate, what about the stand down order? You think it was illegal?
It’s definitely a decision I wouldn’t want the President to make. Nothing exculpatory has been presented, it’s all like a 7 year old child’s “I don’t know”, but it was his decision to make and the only laws he broke where the laws of public opinion. Even though that on the face of it, it looks to be a case of self-serving political interests that drove the decision rather than some or even a nuanced national security reason.
Now we hear it was also the FBI and the CIA.
They are trying as hard as they can to confuse the issue.
My sense is that Petraeus was telling the truth in his closed-door testimony. (Although he did mention the video early on...probably only because Clapper asked him to.)
bookmark
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.