Replies

Thanks Fred. Here is the quote I believe you were referencing.

Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was "shocking" to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.

Am I the only guy that gets a bit touchy when we're trying to attribute comments to Patraeus based on an un-named Congressional Source, and the level of the charge is one that is targeted to destroy his credibility? Did anyone have a reason to destroy his credibility here? Well yes, some Democrats so instructed could have a very good reason if he was going to be involved in a he said/he said situation.

You'll have to forgive me if I am a bit skeptical here. And I'm not saying you're in the wrong. It just looks somewhat iffy to me. You may even agree.

Go back and check that article out. Look at all the sources. The whole article is one unnamed source after another.

U.S. intelligence officials knew...
sources told Fox News...
Intelligence sources said...
The sources said...
Further, an official said, "No one ... believed...
Yet a congressional source told Fox News...
According to the source...
...some members who were present...
In addition, sources confirm...

The claims that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who from the beginning have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.

One intelligence official clarified...
...though officials had an idea of the suspects.
...the official said.
...administration officials...

Yes, we're out in the woods at Miller's Crossing and nothing is at it seems. We don't know if the "sources" are good guys or bad guys. I agree with that. Petraeus could have denied that rumor, also, of course ... but typically no DCI would do that, even if it was a lie (and again, our "sources" would count on that fact.) This is what makes tonight's statement so remarkable. He's clearly reached a point where -- lied before or did not lie before but let it stand -- he's had enough.

Am I the only guy that gets a bit touchy when we're trying to attribute comments to Patraeus based on an un-named Congressional Source...

Hell no D1, count me in.

I'm amazed that there are so many other Freepers who think nothing of getting their info from such sources. Especially under these circumstances.