Meaning you cant believe ANYTHING from anyone in this Admin. Lying bastards. Blood all over them, Benghazi and Fast and Furious. McGurn: Petraeus vs. Petraeus - WSJ.com Petraeus vs. Petraeus The former CIA director's shifting Benghazi story puts the spotlight back on top Obama administration officials. When David Petraeus told Congress on Friday that he knew almost from the get-go that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in a terror attack in Libya, the former CIA director was contradicting information put out by two prominent Obama appointees. The first is United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. The Sunday after the attack, Ms. Rice took to the talk shows to blame everything, falsely, on an Islamic mob outraged by a blasphemous YouTube video. Mr. Petraeus says the CIA's original talking points mentioned al Qaeda. If this was edited out, we ought to know who did it—and why. Columnist Bill McGurn on the conflict among Susan Rice, David Petraeus and Eric Holder over the Benghazi terrorist attack. Photo: Getty Images The other person whom Mr. Petraeus contradicted on Friday was the Mr. Petraeus who briefed the intel committees in the first days after the killings in Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) sadly noted the discrepancy after leaving the latest briefing. Back in September, said Mr. King, Mr. Petraeus had left "the clear impression" that "the overwhelming amount of evidence" was that the atrocity "rose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack." Mr. King's recollection is supported by press accounts at the time, which until now Mr. Petraeus did not correct. Mr. King's characterization is further supported, however inadvertently, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). Appearing on CNN shortly after hearing Mr. Petraeus speak to her own Intelligence Sommittee in September, she said she had seen "no evidence or no assessment" indicating that Benghazi was a planned attack. What do these discrepancies mean? In the narrowest sense, they explain why Mr. Petraeus was so compromised. Even if his initial testimony supporting the Obama administration's version of events wasn't affected by the FBI investigation into his extramarital affair, reasonable people might conclude otherwise. At the time he was leaving Rep. King and Sen. Feinstein with the impression Benghazi had been a spontaneous event, others—including the CIA station chief in Libya—were saying otherwise. As bad as this may be for Mr. Petraeus, it pales next to what it says about how this White House handles security. Start with President Obama. We saw his flash of anger over the contention by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) that Ms. Rice is unfit to be secretary of state. Why no presidential outrage for his own team, who (supposedly) kept him in the dark about an investigation into his CIA director and later put his administration's name on a patently false account of the Benghazi killings? At the top of that team would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The president says it is deeply unfair to blame Ms. Rice for her misleading information because she "had nothing to do with Benghazi." So why was she picked to speak? Might it be that Mrs. Clinton prudently decided she didn't want to go on the record knowing what she did about the real story? Edited. Don't Post Complete Articles.