Skip to comments.Was David Petraeus blackmailed over Benghazi?
Posted on 05/13/2013 10:23:13 AM PDT by Starman417
The Benghazi affair is on fire and it could possibly go nuclear soon.
It is now very clear that the Obama regime scrubbed the truth from the Benghazi talking points.
Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It's unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft talking points being prepared for Rices television appearances.
One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agencys warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned
The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.
It was the Obama regime who politicized Benghazi:
These changes dont resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership. With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft talking points leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.
We are still speculating as to who altered the talking points but there are hints that Steven Hayes might know:
[O]ne previously opaque aspect of the Obama administrations efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points
Nuland wrote that the changes did not resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership. She did not specify whom she meant by State Department building leadership. Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Councils Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national securityincluding State, Defense, and the CIAas well as senior White House national security staffers
According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIAs talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIAs warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Departments director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodess behalf to Sullivan
The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows.
The blame for the changes, clearly done at the White House level, was then dumped on the CIA:
The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points, Carney said. The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isnt the substance here.
It is also well known at this time that David Petraeus was astonished to see how his assessment was freed of the truth:
In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIAs legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIAs warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administrations preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.
This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.
Petraeus has even called the altered talking points "useless."
Petraeus twice briefed members of Congress and on both occasions the event was closed to the public. The first assessment for Congressional members came a few days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi and the second one came on November 16, 2012.
Note that it was back in November when the disparity in initial and final talking points was discovered:
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Is this a trick question?
Certainly they used this personal scandal to sack and discredit Petraeus immediately after he election because they knew they had edited his talking points.
A friend with some knowledge of security matters says he is 100% certain they knew of the Petraeus affair before he became CIA Director.
Not yet. But it’s coming.
If you lie down with dogs...
I lost all respect for Petraeus when he joined the Obama team. IMO he got his just desserts, BUT we need to know the truth.
General Petraeus got rolled.
He was set up as fall guy in case things went south, and there was no way it WASN’T about to fold up like a cheap camping tent.
Whatever personal transgressions General Petraeus may have engaged in, were held over his head, waiting for the moment these items of personal embarrassment could be used against him.
Citizen David Petraeus would have been far better served to have just retired to a country estate somewhere in the Blue Ridge mountains.
He is a Democrat, after all. Which is puzzling, especially after the media and moveon.org smeared him in a pre-planned attack as he gave his report on the Iraqi situation. He had the nerve to actually say we were winning the conflict, so they called him “general betray us”. Democrats at the time were far more hopeful that we were losing dismally, so that they could blame Bush.
He was blackmailed and then double crossed.
Since he was double crossed and they let the cat out of the bag about his affair any way and ruined his career and his life you can bet two things.
First, he is pissed as hell and second, they have lost their leverage on him and he has very little to lose at this point.
Personal life aside, he still continues to be a very popular and sympathetic figure who is respected (at least professionally ) by a lot of Americans.
Given the forgiveness of the serially weird extramarital behavior of Mark Sanford ( me included) , the Democrats have much to worry about from the good General and I don’t think he can be bought off at this point because if he does not come forward, subpoenas are going to go looking for him.
Issa’s and his lawyers are no doubt having some very interesting and informative discussions and negotiations right about now..
Easily answered, subpoena Petraeus..
I’ve twice read that term, “nuclear,” in terms of what Petraeus’ testimony might mean.
I would advise not to hold too high of expectations. Petraeus may express some annoyance at the falsehood of the talking points, but I have doubts he’s going to say anything that’s going to bring down his former boss. Regardless of the way in which he left his post as CIA director, Petraeus is going to feel a sense of loyalty to Obama.
Retired generals nowadays aren’t iconoclasts like those of old. We’re not talking about Douglas MacArthur here.
The “missing talking points” remind me of the “missing 18 minutes” in Nixon’s Watergate tapes.
I’m surprised Rush or Hannity or Levin haven’t picked up on this “parallel” - the left would go apoplectic if we tied the Messiah to their definition of corruption - Nixon.
In terms of corruption, I’m certain Nixon couldn’t hold a candle to Hussein.
al Qaeda is within the Gates of the White Hut, CIA and State Department.
Totally agree - and Nixon had a lot more character and class... he resigned.
Of course they knew. I’d go further to say that Obama had to personally overrule an objection like that to give him the clearance.
He resigned to avoid further charges. But the crime itself was trivial at best. Nixon didn’t even know about the break-in until later, and then his only crime was protecting subordinates. He was black balled by the liberal media because as always, they were out for blood. Now let’s look at Obama. Hundreds of billions of dollars, gone without a trace. That through phony stimulus packages or given to energy companies that strangely go belly-up soon afterward. His collection of Marxist friends and appointees. The guy is cloaked in shadows, his entire past a mystery, which only gets darker the harder you look at it. The outright lies which the media pays no attention to at all. And now Benghazi.
I suggest that the General ensure that he is carrying a personal sidearm at all times. Fascist dictators have a tendency of making problems go away, along with the witnesses that could testify.