Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

Who Changed Petraeus Memo?

14 posts in this topic

http://www.foxnews.com/

And you can diss the source all you like - the facts just have a way of dribbling out though. THIS one will NOT pass without a plausible answer. Benghazigate lives.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I wonder why Fox had a reporter in a closed door session of the intelligence committee, because the word al-Qaeda happens to appear nowhere in the Senators' statements. They just said:

He now clearly believes that it [the Sept. 11 attack] did not arise out of a demonstration, that it was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement

I think it was important; it added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence. He described his actions and that of his agency, their interaction with other agencies, and I appreciate his service and his candor

Does not sound like anybody changed any memo at the time... except on the Fox News desk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I wonder why Fox had a reporter in a closed door session of the intelligence committee, because the word al-Qaeda happens to appear nowhere in the Senators' statements. They just said:

Does not sound like anybody changed any memo at the time... except on the Fox News desk...

If that can be proven then there are at least a half dozen competing news stations who will report the facts of it. So far no contradiction with proof. Benghazigate lives! And the best anyone seems to be able to do is cast doubt on the sources of the ONLT entity that is even interested in why a US ambassador and his protectors were murdered. Or is that an unsubstantiated rumour subject to endless investigation as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Here's the CNN article on it. Sounds like there was some debate about what cause the events since there was both a protest and an attack. Which seems rather understandable. In past attacks on US diplomatic buildings it was fairly clear what was going on so this does seem like a unique situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made the "talking points" classified was the fact that it "named" 2 terror groups that may have been involved with the murders. What Amb Susan Rice got was the "unclassified talking points" which had deleted the "names" as the white house deemed terrorism over and wanted to blame everything on the anti muslim video.

Obama said Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why was "she" pushed out in front of the cameras to spew a false memo?

Where was Obama at the time of the attack? He was giving a paternatity test as a result of a lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that can be proven then there are at least a half dozen competing news stations who will report the facts of it. So far no contradiction with proof. Benghazigate lives! And the best anyone seems to be able to do is cast doubt on the sources of the ONLT entity that is even interested in why a US ambassador and his protectors were murdered. Or is that an unsubstantiated rumour subject to endless investigation as well?

Bjengazigate will be alive just as the Kennedy-Murder-Conspiracy gate and the We-Did-Not-Land-On-The-Moon-gate and the CIA-Bombed-World-Trade-Center-gate... it just won't change anything about the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made the "talking points" classified was the fact that it "named" 2 terror groups that may have been involved with the murders. What Amb Susan Rice got was the "unclassified talking points" which had deleted the "names" as the white house deemed terrorism over and wanted to blame everything on the anti muslim video.

Obama said Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why was "she" pushed out in front of the cameras to spew a false memo?

Where was Obama at the time of the attack? He was giving a paternatity test as a result of a lawsuit.

Which, if true (because that then happened in the Illinois State Capitol), just shows that not even a president is above the law. What is your problem?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made the "talking points" classified was the fact that it "named" 2 terror groups that may have been involved with the murders. What Amb Susan Rice got was the "unclassified talking points" which had deleted the "names" as the white house deemed terrorism over and wanted to blame everything on the anti muslim video.

Obama said Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why was "she" pushed out in front of the cameras to spew a false memo?

Where was Obama at the time of the attack? He was giving a paternatity test as a result of a lawsuit.

Exactly where in the proceeding so far is the evidence that the "white house" deemed terrorism over and wanted to blame everything on the anti muslim video?.

CNN has reported in it's "fact finding" segment that the deleted "names" were done by the intelligence agencies to protect sources and because they had yet to verify the involvement of an al qaeda affiliated terrorist organisation - read unlikely to every to do so if their source was publically compromised before all facts could be gathered in the field.

Edited by libstaK
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White House knew from the very frist hour the attack was from a terrorist group affilated with Al quda, and not a spontaeous attack from protesters to a flim. Everyone told them, the white house even was sent emails that night from the group. I `d have to agree with Pyridium the white house deemed terrorism over and wanted to blame everything on the anti muslim video.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fascinating how skillfully the CIA plays the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I wonder why Fox had a reporter in a closed door session of the intelligence committee, because the word al-Qaeda happens to appear nowhere in the Senators' statements. They just said:

Does not sound like anybody changed any memo at the time... except on the Fox News desk...

I think this is what andthen wanted to bring to the op....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-peter-king-reveals-what-petraeus-testified-about-he-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-the-start/

a CIA analyst with Petraeus testified that the agency’s talking points for the White House immediately after the attack were specific about Al-Qaeda terrorist involvement but that the line was apparently removed from the final version of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone shot my neighbors dog... the person that did it must have 'ties' to Al Qaeiouda.

HOGWASH

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time in the US when other countries would not dream of challenging us, let alone KILLING a US ambassador. Obviously that time is gone, in fact even citizens in our country seem willing to blame US for what they are doing to us. When politics becomes more important than defending the integrity of our self defense then we are in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time in the US when other countries would not dream of challenging us, let alone KILLING a US ambassador.

When was that?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.