So Petraeus testified behind closed doors and lo and behold:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al-Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Who took it out?
Who then decided to send Rice out with that misinformation?
Now if we had a Republican in the White House during this whole affair you know the media and the left would be howling for blood. It would be front page news for months on end.
But now? Not so much.
Funny how that happens.
It gets better:
Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
“His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection.”
Petraeus hides an affair, now he hides the truth it seems as well.
Is there a Bernstein and Woodward amongst our MSM ready to break this story wide open?
Seeing as how our colleges are now leftist indoctrination centers I kinda doubt it.
Example number 1…reporter Joy-Ann Reid:
The administration was given an assessment by the CIA. Susan Rice was the person who went to the public and gave that assessment to the public. When that information changed, the information was given to the public that was new. So I am really not sure what it is that Mr. Fournier and othe
rs are looking for because I don't know that there’s anything beyond that.
…So the issue is the word terrorism weren’t used to the public satisfaction? I’m not sure I understand what the scandal is.
I'm not sure what the scandal is?
First, the attack itself. Why wasn't more security not authorized when they begged for it. During the attack why didn't Obama send in help during a 7-8 hour attack? Afterwards, even when they KNEW that this was a terrorist attack they deliberately lied to the American people and tried to blame it on a video, and that it was all a protest that got out of hand. How about the CIA annex itself? Was it used to jail and interrogate suspected terrorists?
And now we know that someone redacted the official story and changed it.
Who did it?
Roger Simon has a theory up from a reader:
Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.
I’ve always wondered why David Axelrod appeared on news programs to talk about the administration’s official policies when he was a campaign official. Those of us old enough to remember Watergate will recall the mixing of official administration business with CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) activities and the Democrat’s outrage at the time. Perhaps we are seeing the results of a similar improper mix.
Roger Simon continues:
I suspect too that, if true, this is more than just an “improper mix.” Legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.
What may emerge is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.
Watergate anyone? Of course as we all know, no one died during that scandal.