Petraeus Testifies That He Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Immediately … But CIA Info Was

You are not entitled to classified information. That is why the version of the story that was released to the public was the unclassified version.

It's not any more complicated than that.

Some of you seem to have forgotten how you once wanted the NY Times hanged for treason for allegedly publishing classified information...

...well, stick to your principles.
 
Just got done watching a September 27th briefing from the Department of Defense, Defense Department Briefing - C-SPAN Video Library

Of note from the briefing. Reporters at that time, a week and a half after Rice's morning show rounds and more than two weeks after the attack, seem somewhat surprised that the story has changed from riot to terrorist attack.

At 18:00 in the video Panetta is asked by a reporter, Barbara Starr from CNN, about why he is now calling it a terrorist attack. He states flatly, "because it was a terrorist attack" She seems a little startled with the abruptness of the response and asks, "Why do you say that? What information, Why do you come to that conclusion?"

At 19:00 a reporter asks a follow up question of "When did you come to the conclusion that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack?" Secretary Panetta gives a couple generalities but basically shrugs off the question.

It would appear that the entire press corps were in the dark for more than two weeks after the attack, all by the cunning deception of a single person, Susan Rice. Really?

What is somewhat amusing is when at 15:20 when the word Benghazi first comes up both Panetta and Dempsy sit up in their chairs and Dempsy starts rummaging through his papers for his talking points and when Panetta responds he is reading directly from this talking points.

(Also at 16:00 Penatta makes a comment on the request for assistance.)
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that it was a terror attack in the planning that took advantage of the protests for a change in the timetable?

Why is it that you think the protests happened before the attack? Feel free to go back and look and you will find that there was a staged protest in Cairo, then there was an attack in Benghazi later that night. Over the next few days there were protests in lots of different countries. Unless cause and effect violate entropy there is no way that the attack was a result of the protests.
 
Is it possible that it was a terror attack in the planning that took advantage of the protests for a change in the timetable?

more than possible.

but what amuses me about the wingers is that they never said a word when bush's incompetence resulted in nyc being attacked.

did they demand condi's head on a platter?

Because everyone knows they have a time machine.
 
Is it possible that it was a terror attack in the planning that took advantage of the protests for a change in the timetable?

Much too complicated for them to wrap their minds around unless Rush, somebody from FOX or their favorite blog tells them so. The hive mind doesn't tolerate independent thought.

I am not reading a time travel story here, the protests took place in the days after the attack, not the day of. That makes you the idiot that are listening to the voices, not me.
 
You are not entitled to classified information. That is why the version of the story that was released to the public was the unclassified version.

It's not any more complicated than that.

Some of you seem to have forgotten how you once wanted the NY Times hanged for treason for allegedly publishing classified information...

...well, stick to your principles.

That might explain why the references to an Al-Qaeda linked group were redacted from the CIA talking points, it does not explain why Rice went on TV and called the president of Libya a liar.
 
Just got done watching a September 27th briefing from the Department of Defense, Defense Department Briefing - C-SPAN Video Library

Of note from the briefing. Reporters at that time, a week and a half after Rice's morning show rounds and more than two weeks after the attack, seem somewhat surprised that the story has changed from riot to terrorist attack.

At 18:00 in the video Panetta is asked by a reporter, Barbara Starr from CNN, about why he is now calling it a terrorist attack. He states flatly, "because it was a terrorist attack" She seems a little startled with the abruptness of the response and asks, "Why do you say that? What information, Why do you come to that conclusion?"

At 19:00 a reporter asks a follow up question of "When did you come to the conclusion that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack?" Secretary Panetta gives a couple generalities but basically shrugs off the question.

It would appear that the entire press corps were in the dark for more than two weeks after the attack, all by the cunning deception of a single person, Susan Rice. Really?

What is somewhat amusing is when at 15:20 when the word Benghazi first comes up both Panetta and Dempsy sit up in their chairs and Dempsy starts rummaging through his papers for his talking points and when Panetta responds he is reading directly from this talking points.

(Also at 16:00 Penatta makes a comment on the request for assistance.)

Of course they are surprised, everyone went out of their way to argue that it was not a terrorist attack, but the wingnuts wouldn't let them get away with it. Now the claim is that it was always a terror attack, and that no one ever said it wasn't.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top