Friday, November 16, 2012

Benghazi, Petraeus, Obama, McCain

Testifying behind closed doors on Friday, General David Petraeus, former CIA Director, told Congress that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the US Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off. He also said it initially was unclear whether the militants had infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack. Petraeus also said that the draft CIA response to the assault on the diplomatic post in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, referred to it as a terrorist attack. Petraeus said that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency deleted it. Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. "There was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea." But Republicans remain critical of the administration's handling of the case. Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Petraeus' testimony showed that "clearly the security measures were inadequate despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of Sept. 11.". General Petraeus, accordng to lawmakers present at the hearing, testified that protesters literally walked in and set fire to the facility, according to a congressional official who attended the briefing. US Ambassador Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation. Petraeus said security at the CIA annex was much better, but the attackers used armaments to get in. The key to Petraeus' testimony is that he testified that the CIA draft written in response to the raid referred to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb but that those names were replaced with the word "extremist" in the final draft, the Associated Press has reported as being divulged by a congressional staff member. The staffer said Petraeus testified that he allowed other agencies to alter the talking points as they saw fit without asking for final review, to get them out quickly. Dear readers, the Benghazi battle lines are in process of being drawn and they are political. Democrats, including Senator Diane Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are forming a circle around the idea that early reports by the President and his administration, especially UB Ambassador Susan Rice, did not mention al-Qaida because they did not want to tip their hand about how they knew about its involvement. They also say that it was not clear when or how terrorists became involved in an anti-American demonstration. The Republicans are forming around the position that the demonstration theory is false...that there was no demonstration but a planned assault on the American consulate and annex with mortar and rocket fire support, which are signs of an attack. They also point out that local Libyan and governmental sources were on TV within hours of the attact to blame it on al-Qaida. The GOP position is, in any event, that the President knew immediately that al-Qaida was involved, that the American compound had for sone months not been provided sufficient security and that during the hours-long attack, no US military intervention was ordered...or permitted, according to the source. I had hoped that, freed of his administration position, General Petraeus would finally clarify the details of the Benghazi attack. But this did not happen today. He has now provided several versions of what happened...under oath...and one must ask if Petraeus is still trying to protect the President...or save what is left of his reputation by blurring what he knew but did not say immediately when the Benghazi attack occurred. Benghazi will not fade away. An American Ambassador has been assassinated and an American embassy ransacked. The truth and the blame must be pursued. And that grand old curmudgeon of a war hero and Senator, John McCain, seems prepared to make it his final charge. Americans should rally behind him. He is fighting for America's honor and the safety of her diplomats.

3 comments:

  1. I was more than some what disappointed with the general's reported testimony. he has now told so many versions and to what end. As you asked Casey Pops, is he covering for the president, maybe, possibly, probably. Is he trying to so confuse the issue that he escapes clean. Again, maybe, possibly, probably.

    What we need as citizens is ONE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.Not one for each House and Senate committee that wants some "face time" on TV and the evening news. This is serious stuff and could lead to a very broad based cover up by the highest ranking officials in our federal government - the Justice Department, DOD, CIA, National Intelligence and yes even possibly the White House.

    This scandalous "old soft shoe routine" that we are now (and have been since 9/11) surpasses the Nixon Watergate cover up. At least no one died at Watergate.

    These out of control renegades in Washington DC needs to be told and shown in no uncertain terms that they work for us, and we don't like their work habits.

    Our Constitution is under fire and in precarious position of being raped, assaulted as never before by the Progressive Socialists that wish to see the USA in the same predicaments as most of the other leading industrial countries.

    Stand up now America or we won't be allowed to soon.

    "The People Are The Government, Administering it by their Agents; they (citizens) are the government, the sovereign power"
    Andrew Jackson

    ReplyDelete
  2. And where is Andy Jackson when you need him? I know, dead!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think all of you have covered the situation and problem well. The slogan we have seen for several months now is still true and should be acted upon. "Wake up America."

    ReplyDelete