Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:49 AM
courseofhistory (801 posts)
Why David Petraeus gets and EPIC FAIL!
I think if any questions should be asked, they should be asked of Petraeus, the big time failure and stupid idiot who let his groin overrule his head!
Also, I no longer trust Petraeus. His judgment is obviously screwed up (citing his affair and giving or letting her have access to possibly classified info--any access is stupid even if not classified).
Since he has such poor judgment and is distracted in that regard, who knows what he really knew about Benghazi and whether is version of right away was in a few hours or a few days. If he knew something other than what Rice was going to say, then he should have stepped up privately and told her and Obama that it'd be wise to hold off on commenting other than to condemn the attacks themselves and say the investigation is ongoing and when we know more, we will give as many details as we can.
I blame HIM for not covering all bases before anyone spoke about the attacks publically. HE was in charge of the CIA and it was CIA who were operating a clandestine operation there so he should have been out front with this and done a whole lot more than he did to head off any possible misunderstanding.
That said, I still don't think there were lies in the true sense of the word AND everyone who spoke about it used phrases like "we don't want to jump to conclusions", "we will wait for the investigation to be completed to make any definitieve conclusions", our "assessment is preliminary based on what we know now", etc. So there were plenty of "caveats" indicating the talking points weren't the final or necessarily complete or correct version of what took place.
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.
So, most people can see that there was conflicting information and that what Susan Rice said about the video did have some basis in fact.
Why don't the "disturbed" (and that could be taken more ways tha one) republicans ask the terroists about their lies and their heinous crimes? THAT is who should be blamed in all this!
Is it fair to link the Benghazi attack to Al Qaeda?
Only very indirectly. Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al Qaeda, had called on Libyans to avenge the killing of a Libyan-born Qaeda leader, and American intelligence officials have said they intercepted boastful phone calls after the assault from the attackers to members of the Qaeda affiliate in North Africa, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
0 replies, 537 views