Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Petraeus Opposed Benghazi Points

As CIA director, he wanted more material released to the public

May 16, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(23)

TrollSlayer

May-17-13 10:39 PM

Yeah, oldman. This AP article is most definitely "fascist yellow journalism." What do you loony lefties have against the AP these days? They do everything they can to get your Choomer in Chief elected and then you stab them in the back. LOL

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thebudman

May-17-13 11:44 AM

Oldman said:

" this is typical fascist yellow journalism you expect to see in Intel."

FROM WASHINGTON AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.....

This is so funny..

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thebudman

May-17-13 11:39 AM

Why didn't clinton resign when he perjured himself, got impeached, and got disbarred? That's right clueless, clinton is a MAN of no character! lol

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldmansvan

May-17-13 9:07 AM

Sorry righties, this is typical fascist yellow journalism you expect to see in Intel. Check todays news.The truth will set you free.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GETACLUE

May-17-13 7:51 AM

Petraeus disagreed so much that he put out the talking points anyway. Any MAN of character would have resigned rather than become party to a deception. I take what Petraeus says with a GRAIN OF SALT

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

May-16-13 9:50 PM

The Obama administration was caught playing election year politics w/ Benghazi and Petraeus was just another victim. One of the many "bumps in the road" that the bus bearing Illinois plates will traverse.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

beach1

May-16-13 8:58 PM

hey goose,the first 67 hours was left out,isn't it surprising how liberal don't lie, they just leave out the facts!!!!!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

May-16-13 8:37 PM

"I did NOT have sex with that man, Ben Ghazi!"

Hillary Clinton

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-16-13 8:23 PM

Liberal cannibalism is so amusing. LOL

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rover1958

May-16-13 7:15 PM

Who, in God's name, cares at all what this philanderer has to blither about?

He was so busy diddling that ugly Army bimbo some flunky aide most likely wrote any pointless 'points' anyhow.

This latest 'news' likely fronted by Petraeus's handlers (paid for contractors) who charged with 'rehabilitating his image' (so he can make big bucks on the business/academic lecture circuit.

Give it up David! You are continuing to make a public fool of yourself.

ps: your cheap hairpiece really looks bad.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

May-16-13 5:20 PM

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.

The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus.

“Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence “talking points” that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound.

But Clueass says there is nothing to look at here. Except the missing emails........

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

May-16-13 4:52 PM

Where are the e-mails for Sept 12th-13th? There is a 67 hour gap between the attack and the timestamp of the 1st released e-mail

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

May-16-13 4:51 PM

Clueass, wrong, the talking point of the day WAS "this was a long time ago".

Or "There is no "there " There"

or "Obama is too detached to be involved in a cover-up!"

Too Lazy to Impeach!

FAIL!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-16-13 12:04 PM

Clueless, so Obama was clueless, and Hillary’s State Department is where most of the cover-up occurred? I’m sure you’ll take that into account when Hillary is running for Obfuscator in Chief. LOL

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ShempH

May-16-13 11:17 AM

Although Petraeus could not keep his dick in his pants, he clearly had the best interest of our service members. I'd go with what he says.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardwhee

May-16-13 10:49 AM

As usual, this all comes out after the elections. Oh well, if it came out before the elections, the free loaders would still have elected the present admin and all of it's cover-ups; just to keep their hand-outs coming.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thebudman

May-16-13 9:55 AM

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.

The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, af

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GETACLUE

May-16-13 8:52 AM

MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!

"The e-mails show only minor edits were requested by the White House, and most of the objections came from the State Department. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," read an e-mail that a CIA official sent to Petraeus on Sept. 14."

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Triton

May-16-13 8:44 AM

As the IRS secret political police scandal grows, the Libya thing also grows and is easier to understand how the Obama/Clinton reaction was so flawed and untruthful. Patraeus declined to lie before Congress and before he testified the White House leaked scandalous information about him having a girl friend to discredit what he was going to say. No matter, he still had an officer's code and he told the truth, that the White House changed the facts to make the attack seem not terrorist. It was just for politics, as was the hit job on Patraeus' character by his own boss. This is a Nixon like White House we are looking at. Libya, IRS, Fast and Furious, this is a monster who uses people, including gullible liberals for power and to keep power. Ugly political crime. Petraeus is a hero, he told the truth no matter what it cost him. Obama, not a hero. He uses power to try to corrupt others and destroy personal freedoms. Much larger than Watergate. Americans were harmed by the IRS.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-16-13 7:29 AM

So since the CIA’s emails criticizing the Obama’s State Department’s efforts to obscure the facts related to Benghazi didn’t specifically mention the campaign that makes the Administration’s lies to the American people ok? Seriously?

I suppose since Obama’s IRS’s illegal targeted audits of conservative groups didn’t mention the campaign those crimes were ok, too.

Keep squirming, Goosy. Keep backtracking, Barry. The American people will get to the bottom of your crooked Administration’s crimes. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” is wearing out.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

May-16-13 5:14 AM

awww,,,no Watergate here.

Seems to me that those with their hair on fire, should apologize as well as those who printed the far right extremist lies.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

May-16-13 5:13 AM

WASHINGTON –- The White House on Wednesday released the full set of emails surrounding the Obama administration’s development of talking points describing the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in response to continuing charges from congressional Republicans that there was a massive political “cover-up” of what transpired there. Nothing in the emails supports theories that the talking points were changed in order to influence the 2012 election.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

May-16-13 3:32 AM

Petraeus as close to honest as anyone involved in the Obama mess.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 23 of 23 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: