The Petraeus Testimony – Someone At The White House “Cleaned Up / Changed” The Talking Points and Susan Rice Deceived The American People Intentionally….

The Media is now in full “protect Obama” mode, trying desperately to excuse the White House from changing the talking points given to them by the “intelligence community”.  The media is trying to explain the unexplainable, excuse the unexcusable, and obfuscate the meaning of intentional lying.

Petraeus confirmed the initial explanations from the intelligence community gave the White House specific information about the cause of the Benghazi Attack being related to al-Qaeda related terrorists.

Why the intelligence was changed, who changed it, and what motive was there for the White House to use an unattached spokesperson, Susan Rice, is still theoretically unadmitted.

However, common sense tells you that CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Director Clapper, and others could not be used because they had the true knowledge of the attack.   The “insiders” did not possess the needed distance for plausible deniability – Hence the White House needed a rube to sell the lie.   They chose Susan Rice with the specific intention of falsely notifying the public.

Bottom Line:   Susan Rice lied to the American People.    She did so willingly and purposefully, with specific intent, because she was told to do so by President Obama.

This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, Clinton(s), Egypt & Libya Part 2, media bias, Sept 11, Susan Rice, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Petraeus Testimony – Someone At The White House “Cleaned Up / Changed” The Talking Points and Susan Rice Deceived The American People Intentionally….

  1. Artist says:

    but, but,,,,,,Susan Rice is a black woman!!!! You are obviously a racist misogynist!
    ( of course I am being sarcastic )


  2. gretchenone says:

    It’s really the Obama administration that is racist and sexist–purposefully sending out an expendable black woman strapped with a ‘bomb’. A martyr, so to speak. So very Islamist of them.


  3. BertDilbert says:

    Has the administration apologized to the maker of the Muslim film for intentionally making him out to be the cause of the deaths of 4 people and making him a international spotlight? The neighborhood was engulfed in media and the neighbors were inconnivanced to accommodate the presidents agenda? Is the administration going to reimburse the media for bankrolling reporters to go to the wrong location?


  4. John Galt says:

    I don’t know why Congress even bothers to have hearings. They know they won’t do anything. Why pretend?


  5. waltherppk says:

    The present course of inquiry is largely a dog and pony show, but may gradually lead to the truth. The only thing directly relevant to inquiry about Benghazi is the actual operational events during the hours which 4 Americans were abandoned to their fates by the dereliction of duty and possible treason of the president who has subsequently lied about what happened. The POTUS first tried to deceive with a cover story about a YouTube video, and now tries to deceive with a manufactured sex scandal . Such dual irrelevant misdirections have not one thing whatever to do with the central issue which is the deaths of the 4 Americans, homicides in which the president is culpably negligent and ought to be impeached. Likewise for the deaths associated with Fast and Furious are culpable negligence homicide. Obama is a repeat offender in culpable negligence homicide. That is how these crimes should be treated, handled as bona fide murder investigations in which the president is implicated as negligent and incompetent at a level which is criminal.


    • PBR says:

      Question: What were they doing there (in Benghazi) in the first place, and why was proper protection not afforded the ambassador, Christopher Stevens?
      Question: I’m remembering that Obama held all this scandal about Petraeus until AFTER the 2012 election. Why?


      • waltherppk says:

        What they were doing is a CIA operation covertly running arms, and trying also to do a buy back on stingers and MANPADS that Obama had been furnishing to his ISIS and Muslim Brotherhood bosom buddies who were lighting the entire mideast ablaze with the fundamentalist uprising Obama started and then let get out of control. Armaments and probably money were being warehoused at the CIA ammo dump er I mean “embassy annex” that was attacked and looted as a double cross by the local raghead bosom buddies.


  6. wrongonred says:

    Can Rice not be made to testify in front of the Committees? All this talk about changes being made to the talking points and everyone not knowing anything, why is it that her rear does not go on the hot seat, and she be asked “Who handed these to you?” what is she going to say, “I do not recall” or “They just appeared in my hands…” and just follow the trail upward to BHO?


  7. strat4evr says:

    Rep. Adam Schiff, D.-Calif, said Patraeus disputed Republican claims that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of Obama’s re-election campaign. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda.” Schiff said Pataeus said Rices comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly”.
    There are so many contradictions in this entire story even after Patraeus testified today. Am I missing something here or does this not contradict what he has previosly stated. I still believe that Patraeus is a patriot and has served his country well, however I am perplexed by the above statements.


    • The White House has told all Dem operatives to hide them behind “national security”.

      The White House took out the al-Qaeda elements from the talking points – they are saying they did so because leaving the truth of what caused the attacks was “classified”.

      The “non-classified”, or “public” talking points were a story, a lie, a ruse…. about a movie.

      What Schiff is saying is, in essence, — Because the White House could only sell the “non-classified” story, they were forced to sell the version that was a lie. The White House was forced to lie to protect national security…..

      ……. That’s what they are selling.


      • strat4evr says:

        So why didn’t Patraeus accurately state then that since due to national security the true intelligence at the time was replaced by fabricated intelligence and sold to the public by Rice’s appearances on these interviews. He obviously knew that was the case. ………..
        And of course “we ain’t buying what they are selling”.


  8. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    Did anyone catch this story:

    Pam Broadwell, Jill Kelly and her sister visited the Whitehouse.

    Were these members of Obama’s Brown Bra Brigade getting their marching orders to expose the Petreus sex scandal because he was threatening to tell the truth?


  9. The arrogance of Obama. Thinking he can get away lying to the American public every time because he has lied with impunity with cover provided by the Liberal media. Obama’s presidential campaign was a campaign for morons. It appears that is what he thinks of us. He has the typical Liberal Elitist view of Americans as dumbed-down buffoons clueless to what’s going on in Washington because of the Mushroom Treatment the Lib Media gives them to hide Dem shenanigans.


  10. yankeeintx says:

    Obama claims he gave the “go” order to somebody…who? What has been leaked so far is that Gen. Petraeus claims al-queda was removed for national security reasons, but he doesn’t know who did the edit. We still don’t know who decided to add “it is all about a movie” (I’m still really curious as to how and why they had that movie excuse all ready and waiting to be used – and why everyone keeps saying the movie “that we had nothing to do with”?), and we still don’t know why help wasn’t sent. The decision not to mention al-queda was not political, it was done so as not to tip them off, just doesn’t make sense. The group responsible had already gone on facebook and claimed responsibility, and they are already known to be connected to al-queda.

    Maybe the liberals don’t mind being lied too because it fits their style. They are probably so glad that Obama apologized for that movie that offended the muslims because we really shouldn’t do that to such a peaceful religion. They probably watched the news and thought that if it wasn’t for that movie, those 4 American’s would still be alive, so sad, but we’ve apologized so let’s move on.

    As American’s we were getting more information from foreign sources than we were getting from our own government. Someone made the decision to lie to us, rather than telling the truth and that is unacceptable to me.

    And now for my rant:
    Panetta claims help wasn’t sent because he can’t send people into harms way! WTF!!! This is our military, what do you think they do for a living? If the guys waiting in Italy were told this was a mission with many unknown factors, so it was voluntary, they would have been plowed over in the rush to get on the plane. There was a time when the world knew that you don’t mess with Americans, but thanks to our wussy-in-chief, and pansy Panetta the “bad guys” just scored a win. They just put many more of our guys in harms way now that they know they can storm a consulate, kill an ambassador and get away with it. By the way, where are all the records of the weapons that were purchased by the CIA at the annex, and where are they now???
    (Wow, that was tough to type without using all the curse words that were the actually in my thoughts)


    • Sam says:

      I’ve been curious how they knew about the movie since I found out the movie excuse was a hoax. And that was weeks and weeks ago. Thomas Joscelyn on the Long War Journal site has an article about how excerpts of the video were shown on Egyptian TV to rile up the Cairo crowds. But how did they know about the video? Walid Shoebat claims the video was funded by Palestinians. I think it was a plant used to provoke the reaction it did provoke in Egypt. The American embassy in Cairo was asked by a minor Egyptian journalist to comment on it at the time (9/11/12) and knew nothing about it, so asked State’s Public Affairs office in Washington. They knew nothing either. But that’s how lower level State employees found out about the video apparently.

      I don’t trust the administration at all and their protests that they had nothing to do with the video make me think that they just might have something to do with it.

      There should be a log, a written log, of the distress call from the ambassador’s security guy at the beginning of the assault which went up the chain double time quick and was personally handed to the president. It should have been logged every step of the way, every person who it was passed on to and exactly what time that happened. People keep forgetting there should be a log for this kind of emergency. It’s protocol that one be kept. IF Obama had ordered a rescue operation, it would have gone down the chain in record time and SpecOps guys would have been running over anyone who got in the way of their deploying. Africom would have got the call to respond, Gen. Ham would have called the European Command or Centcom to mobilize the troops in Signonella. (Africom did not have a quick reaction force yet remember. But the other commands do.) There would be records every step of the way.

      The Obama admin’s game here is to delay, distract, obfuscate and lie to prevent anyone knowing the truth of what happened. Because they are doing this, I assume the worst – that they had something to do with it. I have theories involving kidnapping, hostage swaps and gun running to Syrian Salafists. Don’t listen to what they say. Whatever Obama says is a lie. Watch what actually happens in the Middle East and around the world. Yes, it’s now open season on US diplomatic personnel.


      • yankeeintx says:

        Someone posted here that at the first mention of the movie, it only had about 5000 hits on youtube, and my guess would be most of those were from Americans checking it out. The protests in Cairo were planned as a demand for the release of the blind sheik, so who first started the story about the movie?

        There is a much deeper story here. Could it have been a kidnapping attempt to trade the ambassador for the sheik? Where are all the weapons that the CIA bought back from the rebels? Why was the ambassador even in Benghazi on 9/11? There are still so many questions that we will probably never get answers.


    • PBR says:

      Feels like a planned takedown of Christopher Stevens.


  11. strat4evr says:

    “They just put many more of our guys in harms way now that they know they can storm a consulate, kill an ambassador and get away with it.”

    I can only wonder how our own embassy support personnel at other U.S. Embassies across the world feel about what support they can expect should similar attacks occur at the embassies that they are assigned to protect. The message that this administration has sent through their response to the attacks at Benghazi is surely not a good one. When you can’t trust your commanders in a military the responsibility ultimately falls on the POTUS.


    • yankeeintx says:

      It is not only limited to embassy support, even our guys in Afghanistan are limited. The ROE are insane, and now they have limited air support. I wonder if the new recuits are told that they are going to have to learn how to fight with one hand tied behind their back.


  12. strat4evr says:

    And a POTUS that denies responsibility is a broken link in a chain of command that ultimately weakens the entire chain all the way to the men and women in the trenches. Americans should be outraged at this entire administration.


  13. Mikado Cat says:

    Al-queda certainly knew they did it and announced it, why is it the American people had to be lied to?

    Obama was covering his behind, and put the election ahead of the lives of the people in Benghazi. Admitting an attack by Al-queda on 9/11 would have shown how ineffective killing Osama bin Laden was, and that Al-queda was even stronger in the region than before. It would have disrupted Obama’s campaign schedule, his important fund raising event in Las Vegas, and any problems during a rescue attempt might have cost him the election. Lying was so much easier, less risky with his lapdog press.


  14. Mikado Cat says:

    When Bill Clinton lied about Lewinsky, the lie was more important than porking his intern.

    Obama’s lies about Benghazi are the tip of the iceberg, and we may NEVER get past doubt over the meaning of what he said, and the reasons for saying it. Its important, but small compared to what happened in Benghazi, lack of security, failure to respond to pleas for help, and no information on what the operation was and how it was compromised. What did Alkada achieve, capture, etc. beyond a bloody marker of their power for 9/11?


  15. Crucial says:

    Talking Points = liberal code speak for LIE


  16. Lady_Lbrty says:

    Funny how they got rid of that video!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s