David Petraeus testifies before Intelligence Committee
After two days of testimony at closed door House and Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, one fact has emerged: Someone in the Obama administration is playing fast and loose with the facts before, during and after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
As reported early Thursday evening, senior national security officials testified it was clear from the very start that the Benghazi consulate was subjected to a pre-planned armed assault. This information came to us from Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss who told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, “It was very clear from day one this was a terrorist attack.”
The real blockbuster came during Friday’s hearing, when former CIA Director David Petraeus told the committee members that the CIA memo he prepared indicated that the raid was a planned assault involving al-Qaida affiliated terrorists and that there was no mention of a demonstration against an anti-Muslim YouTube video.
Somewhere that language got changed. According to Rep. Pete King (R-LI), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, “Nobody knows where it was changed.”
Clearly upset, King continued, “ It was nobody in the intelligence community, so it goes to the Justice Department, State Department, White House — somewhere along the line.”
According to a Fox News report,
King called for White House staff to testify in the committee’s probe of the botched response to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack “to see if anyone there changed the talking points . . . and why.”
“There is still a lot of unanswered questions,” he said of the Benghazi probe. “It’s far from over.”
Some lawmakers claimed the language in the talking points was changed so the terrorists wouldn’t be alerted that US authorities were on their trail. Others said that explanation was preposterous.
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He described the CIA talking points memo’s alteration as “either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence” by Obama and his administration.
Whether the memo was altered before or after it reached the White House, one thing is certain: The “buck stops” in the oval office.
Read more at Fox News.
Related BizPac Review articles and videos:
Benghazi testimony underway: ‘This was purely a terrorist attack’ (with video)
Peter King: CIA talking points altered after they left CIA (with video)
Video: Did Petraeus change his story on Libya attack?
About Michael Dorstewitz
Loading ...
FACTS ARE FACTS–WHETHER OBAMA WANTED TO CALL THIS A TERRORIST ATTACK OR NOT–HE STILL DID NOTHING TO HELP THOSE BEING ATTACKED AT THE EMBASSY AND AT THE SAFE HOUSE. HE DIDN’T WANT TO SEND HELP AND 1 REASON IS THEY DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE A CHANCE OF HURTING INNOCENT PEOPLE—- BUT IT WAS OK TO JUST LET THOSE 4 PEOPLE DIE. IF HE WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR HELP I BET THAT ATTACK WOULD HAVE ENDED WHEN THOSE REINFORCEMENTS GOT THERE–WOULD THOSE 4 MEN STILL BE ALIVE—MAYBE AND MAYBE NOT BUT AT LEAST OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF WOULD HAVE ACTED LIKE ONE.
I say Impeach his no good Ass!!!
I agree with you Adlyne Day, 100% and so do many Americans. We can take our chances with Joe or because the election was held under false pretenses, maybe a re-election.
He is no longer my President, I think the election was tampered with and George Soros had a lot to do with it. he wanted to get Obama back in office to destroy this country of ours. he hates the U. S.A. He plans to turn us into a Communist country . next thing is the Constitution it will be gone in no time at all. We will, have no rights left and will be taxed and we will all have to depend on the gov’t . We need to stand up to this tyranny . So Americans stand up and take our country back. Let’s take him to trial before he gets to appoint another Supreme court judge, if he does we are truly sunk as a Republic Nation.And all those who have died for our freedoms will have died in vain. May God bless America again.
WHO IS GOING TO DO IT????……THE ONLY THING WE ARE HEARING IS TALK…….NO ONE WITH ANY TYPE OF AUTHORITY WILL DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT…..SO…..WE ARE SCREWED….
I agree but sadly the Democratic political machine is trying to sweep this under the rug! Bill Maher said on his show last night That the republicans should let this go AND WHO CARES ABOUT BENGHAZI ?? HE and Michael Moore where nothing but short of treasonous last night with the poor choice of comment they made! Shame on HBO trying to cover up this mess and sending out Bill Maher and Michael Moore to Trumpet the charge!!
A real good time to “get on their trail” would have been during the seven hours it was taking place, don’t you think?
Thisis the biggest bunch of shit I have seen since Viet-Nam, Obummer is guilty as hell of treason and has to be impeached and brought to trial an
I agree with you. We Impeached Nixon I call for Impeachment proceeding to begain Today!!!!!!
Obama was in the white house during the attack… He is the head of state. he was advised of the attack at once,, He chose to ignore the poor americans he had appointed to the embassy, the ambassador was dead, drug thru the embassy, while videos captured his dead body. Obama went to bed. The embassy struggled for 6 hours, .two American heroes disobeyed orders and ran two miles to help. they killed many terrorists from the roof of the embassy ,til they were also killed. Obama is guilty.. Thomcat.
LIKE I SAID TO MARY BERARDINO……WHO IS GOING TO DO IT???????
I hope the secretary of state will be subpoenaed soon. Is she huddled with all the other liars and canivers in the Whitehouse shredding and rewriting and deleting?
Cloward–Piven strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.[2]
The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty)[citation needed].
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:
The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”[4]
Focus on Democrats
The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. “Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition,” they wrote. “Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few… would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[5] Reception and criticism
Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because “Great Society programs had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.”[6]
Liberal commentator Michael Tomasky, writing about the strategy in the 1990s and again in 2011, called it “wrongheaded and self-defeating”, writing: “It apparently didn’t occur to [Cloward and Piven] that the system would just regard rabble-rousing black people as a phenomenon to be ignored or quashed.”[7]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nixon was never impeached. Nixon resigned before impeachment proceeding started. However, “Oral Clinton” did get impeached, but had the votes to keep him in office. I agree with you that ” President Obamanation”
should be impeached for all the underhanded maneuvering and lying of the Benghazi mess.
It is clearly a cover up. Someone changed the talking points after it left the CIA. They don’t magically get changed by themselves like Obama and his staff would like us to believe. (Cause he thinks we are that dumb and that he can get by with it because the media will allow him too.) He is the most condescending president in my lifetime. This is clearly MUCH worse than Watergate and don’t even try to say its close to what Bush did when they thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly we had bad intelligence. There is a HUGE difference between having bad intelligence and trying to cover something up. Personally, I just wish I could see someone come along that had some backbone. Oh how I would admire a democrat who spoke up and said something stinks about all of this, but oh no God forbid anyone try to do the right thing. When Obama stood up for Rice at his press conference the other day and called out McCain and Graham on their attack against Rice I so wish I could have been there and said “No Mr. President, it is you that should be called out, because someone sent her out to do your dirty work.” I have a bad feeling about all of this. Obama will get by somehow or someway or use someone as a scapegoat. If he was involved and I believe him to be I pray the truth comes out and justice is sought. Unfortunately, I think we may have a Teflon Don as president.
So what are we the American people going to do about it? Talk is cheap it’s time to act! I don’t care what it takes; we must do all we can to get rid of this monster. Call our representatives and demand action. That means a Watergate type hearing. The truth must be told and there is no other way. Harry Reid will stop anything that might exposé this little dictator. We cannot allow this situation to be buried or forgotten, even if we have to surround the Whitehouse with hundreds of thousands of patriots.
Impeachment!!!! The no good lying scumbag. So many lies Romney did not have a chance. Just wait until the stupid people realize who they voted for.