Sounds logical to me, and even the NYT agrees.
Posted on 11/18/2012 6:23:08 AM PST by AAABEST
They had some lofty goal of not wanting to "tip off" the terrorists - but nobody can say whose idea it was or who changed the language?
Also, why is the discussion being framed around who "omitted" the terrorist language? Omitting language is not what's at issue. A blatant lie about some "video" was created out of whole cloth and promulgated repeatedly over an extended period of time by the highest levels of the executive branch.
We know that he's already perjured himself at least once on the matter. Nevermind the adultery - it now appears he's morphed into a criminal trying to save his own ass rather than doing what's right for his country.
Agreed. “Omitting” is not the same as “concocting.”
What?
Sounds logical to me, and even the NYT agrees.
There could be a potent counter argument here and the real criminals are far above him, trying to save their own asses, and particularly over the phony issue of terrorism being put to bed by the successfully led Obama America (sic), the only inconvenience being the attack on the Benghazi outlets by terrorist groups right smack in the middle of the reelection campaign which laid a big pile of doo doo right on their narrative about how they succeeded in the “War on Terror”. He could turning evil, or he could still be a good man but is being excoriated by those larger fish above him who are about to go scott-free via the old Potomac Two Step Blame Game.
We know that he's already perjured himself at least once on the matter. Nevermind the adultery - it now appears he's morphed into a...
HOW DID HE PERJURE HIMSELF? Shows us where/when he was under oath!
You are worse than the MSM that has turned on America. But that's nothing new about you.
It comes down to the one question Greg Gutfeld, on THE FIVE, has been asking for 8 weeks...”Who pushed the video?? “
He already turned when he supported gays in the military.
He testified in Congress shortly after the incident, and claimed that it was the stupid video. Now there’s reports that he just testified in Congress that it was a terrorist attack and he knew it all along. Two different stories. Both under oath. That’s disturbing to me.
The ambassador and his men were left hanging out to dry, lest ‘the narrative’ (”Obama’s Dead, GM’s alive”) be contradicted. Petraeus thought that the same people who made that decision would somehow not do it to him. The moment that Ohio went for Obama—the moment when Petraeus’ obeisance was no longer important—was the moment that he, too, was left hanging out to dry. The only surprise was that Petraeus was surprised.
Just sayin'.
He’s now protecting his wife’s new position and salary.
One thing that strikes me as rather strange is that today’s general wears a ton of ‘fruit salad’ on his coat. It’s gone even beyond merit badges for scouts.
Betrayus, for example, has one for combing his hair and tying his necktie correctly. It would be an interesting afternoon for him to explain exactly what each Dentine Chewing Gum wrapper represents.
A far cry from the days of DDE who wore no decorations on his jacket.
Apparently its a generational thing. “I, I, I, I, I!”
pitifully stupid premise
http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/11/14/benghazi-petraeus-thought-he-could-keep-his-job/
He was not under oath on 9/14/12 in front of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
well if you are saying legally prosecutable perjury then yes he would have had to be under oath.
Doesn’t change the fact the dude is a liar, why are you defending him, is he your brother or something? The dude is a reptile
Ok so now it is fine to lie as long as someone doesn't place you under oath? That doesn't work for the Military my friend. If you accept that in your world I wish you the best. Read my tag line.
DECLARATIONS
Updated November 16, 2012, 6:18 p.m. ET 
David Petraeus and Dwight Eisenhower
The I's Have It
By PEGGY NOONAN
An epidemic of egomania strikes America's civilian and military leadership.
We are becoming a conceited nitwit society, pushy and self-aggrandizing. No one is ashamed to brag now. And show off. They think it heightens them. They think it's good for business.
It used to be that if you were big, you'd never tell people how big you were because that would be kind of classless, and small. In fact it would be a proof of smallness.
So don't be showy. The big are modest.
Ha.
There is the issue—small but indicative of something larger—of how members of the U.S. military present themselves, and the awe they consciously encourage in the public and among the political class. The other day on his Daily Beast blog, Andrew Sullivan posted a letter from a reader noting the way officers are now given and relentlessly wear on their dress uniforms ribbons, markers and awards for pretty much everything they do—what used to be called fruit salad. Mr. Sullivan posted two pictures we echo here, one of Gen. David Petraeus and one of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. This is the Eisenhower of D-Day, of the long slog through Europe in World War II. He didn't seem to see the need to dress himself up and tell you what he'd done. Maybe he thought you knew. He didn't wear all the honors to which he was entitled, though he could have used them to dazzle the masses if that had been what he was interested in.
Top brass sure is brassier than it used to be. And you have to wonder what that's about. Where did the old culture of modesty go? Ulysses S. Grant wore four stars on his shoulder and nothing else on his uniform. And that was a fellow who'd earned a few medals...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578121424215017436.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.