Well, given General David Petraeus’s testimony today, looks like we’re going to need to add another question about Benghazi. Or we could just call it a sub-question to those I asked in that post now that we have learned that someone in the administration changed the CIA’s “talking points”:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.
Now, it’s time to find out who changed those talking points and why.
. . . who provided the talking points to Ambassador Susan Rice.
Just caught this on Breitbart:
Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
Read the whole thing. I have lots of thoughts on this, but am beat and regret I can’t express them as well as I’d like. This goes right to the administration’s credibility — and begs the question: why did they peddle the story that Ambassador Rice was instructed to peddle on the various Sunday shows?
POSSIBLY RELATED: SHOULD THE SECRETARY OF STATE BE A DUPE?
I’ve been traveling all day and haven’t have had as much time as I would like to check the blogs — or the news. I’m now in Cincinnati with my family and expect to have far less blogging time over the next few days.
I did buy a Wall Street Journal at LAX and have had time to skim the Yahoo! and Huffington Post (AOL) headlines as well as those on Instapundit and other favorite blogs. And as I read about the president insisting on a $1.6 trillion tax hike (on the rich — or so he says), I keep looking for other specific details about his plan to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Then, just before hitting the hay, I caught this on Jennifer Rubin’s blog
The press likes to paint House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) as a prisoner of his base. But in fact he was elected by unanimous vote and boldly put a grand bargaining offer on the table. That is far more than Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has done, and much more than the president has done (at least in public). So where are the stories about the left-wing base blocking progress on a deal? I imagine left-leaning media editors and reporters would be flabbergasted by the notion.
Emphasis added. So, Boehner has put an offer on the table. And it doesn’t seem that either Senate Democrats or the president have followed suit.
Perhaps, Rubin is mistaken and the president has put a plan on the table. If you are aware that he has, please provide a link to a blog post/article which provides the details of that plan.
If he hasn’t, how then can he negotiate in good faith when one party has put its cards on the table — and he has not.
Saw this on Facebook and had to share it. I trust this will particularly please our reader ILoveCapitalism: