Benghazi: The Truth Finally Begins to Come Out




David Petraeus, with little left to lose now, begins the process of the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi:


Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday  morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack  that “Al Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the  final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top  lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who spoke to reporters after Petraeus testified  before the House Intelligence Committee, indicated he and other lawmakers still  have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the attack.

“No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking  points,” he said.

Petraeus was heading next to the Senate Intelligence Committee to  testify. At the same time, lawmakers unexpectedly convened a briefing with  top members of various committees to examine a Sept. 25 letter to President  Obama that asked a series of classified questions on Benghazi.

Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated  claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and  according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14.  Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a  protest that spun out of control.

If this involved a Republican administration the Mainstream Media would be over this like a pack of starving wolves on a flock of particularly fat sheep.  As it is, they will do their best to continue to play down this story, but I don’t think they will succeed over time.  Too  many questions unanswered and too many dead Americans.


More to explorer


  1. I hope you are right, Don, that the truth will come out and that the response to it will be appropriate; but if the truth is truly embarrassing for the Administration, I’m afraid the MSM will greet it with a giant shoulder shrug. Most Americans are not that caught up in “current events,” and without relentless news coverage (see Watergate), the matter will prove to be of little moment except for those who died. I hope I’m wrong and comforted by the knowledge that I often am.

    I still don’t have any reasonable understanding of why exactly we did not support our fellow Americans when they were begging for support.

  2. In the short term, I don’t think it will matter much in terms of hurting Obama. At this point nothing short of impeachment and removal from office will derail Obama’s agenda.

  3. The title of the post should have been, Petraeus starts to admit what everybody already knew. The truth has been from the beginning despite administration and media efforts to suppress it.

  4. 1. Paul, it is being filtered through Adam Schiff.

    2. “No politicization” could mean that the White House did not lean on the CIA to alter their assessments. Rather, they were taken and then altered by parties elsewhere. Evidently Petraeus admits he does not know the identity of the agency which removed the line.

    3. What could the justification for removing that line be? That it conflicts with the assessments of other intelligence agencies? Which agencies?

  5. From Petraeus’ testimony, we now know that the CIA told the WH that al Qaeda terrorists staged an organized, well planned attack on the Benghazi consulate long before Rice did her song and dance on five, count ’em 5, Sunday news shows.

    The WH, to sustain the, “we have al Qaeda on the run” myth until the election was over, told Rice the official lie. Oops, Freudian slip, I meant “line”. The WH told Rice exactly what to say, and she went on five (5) Sunday news shows and told the same bold-faced lie each time. That’s a woman with balls.

    But the real reason for the cover-up was not to perpetuate Obama’s, (I’m great at foreign policy” whopper, it was much deeper.

    You see, Amb Stevens was supplying weapons to al Qaeda, (arm of Muslim Brotherhood) that’re fighting in Syria to overthrow Assad, so the MB can takeover the govt just like they have in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya.

    Obama has been using U.S. resources, influence, money, and in some cases, our military to support the MB’s goal of seizing control of the Middle East and implementing Sharia law.

    You know how Obama and the media was touting the Arab Spring as a spirited revolt of people wanting freedom and democracy? Well, that was a big fat lie.

    The Arab Spring, which is still going on by the way, is actually a plan cooked up between the MB and Obama to 1) destabilize the govts of ME countries, 2) topple the leaders of their govts, and 3) MB takover of their govts, and implement Sharia law.

    Key to the success of the plot was Obama convincing Mobarak to resign as Egypt’s president, so that Obama’s MB buddy, Mohammed Morsi could succeed him as the new Egyptian president. See, Morsi also moonlights as the leader of the MB.

    Now, as the Egyptian president, Obama could authorize billions of our tax dollars in “aid” to Egypt, which, was placed right in the hands of new prez Morsi… Money which he, Morsi, as MB leader, put to immediate use to support MB’s Middle East takeover goal.

    The Benghazi consulate actually wasn’t as much a consulate as it was a front for the CIA gun running operation headed up by Stevens, to get the captured Libyan weapons into the hands of al Qaeda.

    The orders for an operation of this type, supplying a known American and Israeli enemy that’s killed 1000s of Americans, with weapons that they will certainly use to, again, kill Americans and Israelis… orders for this operation had to originate from the highest levels of our govt, which would be the POTUS.

    Obviously, aiding and abetting a known enemy of the state is a treasonous act. Even more so if perpetrated by the POTUS.

    So naturally, if a POTUS was involved in such a heinous scheme, he wouldn’t want anyone to find out about it.

    Which may be the “real” reason why additional security was denied the Benghazi U.S. consulate repeatedly in the months leading up the the 9/11 attack. And the POTUS refused to authorize back-up forces to Bhenghazi at any time during the almost 8 hour long massacre leaving 4 Americans dead.

    If the Benghazi investigation is allowed to continue, which the WH’s pit bull Reid is already fighting, the truth will come out.

    If the fact that the Ambassador Stevens was pointman for running guns to al Qaeda, does not come out… then America is already a dictatorship

  6. This is such a devastating event.. In a way, I’m shocked at the end result, and in another way I’m not at all. I believe O’bama would do ANYTHING he could to keep this under the radar until after the election. My question would be,, and I hope people do not take this as a racist question, just hope to get an honest answer from everyone: If, at the time, the Commander in Chief was white, and the 4 Americans left there to be slaughtered had been African American, would there be a different outcry from the American public for truthful answers? Do not support or oppose a leader simply for the color of their skin. I don’t care if our President is black, white, or both.. don’t “not support them” because they are black, and don’t “do support them”because they are.That has nothing to do with being the better person to run this coutry. Educatate yourself on issues, foreign polocies and relations, and track records. I believe we are in for a rough 4 years, and whom ever has to clean up this mess in the 5th year will have the hands very full.

  7. The whole matter will be drawn out until no one cares anymore. What i don’t understand is how, as a nation, a great majority don’t care that four fellow americans were murdered while begging for help? Why do those in the military keep silent knowing that at least two of their own died while those in command just SAT THERE and watched it unfold? Their silence is a conundrum.

  8. R.Framer,

    The corrupt, gutless brass-hats are silent because it is what they are.

    Four died in Benghazi. And, hundreds of young American troops are murdered by Afghan taliban infiltrators. No one cares.

    Of course, we have a Dem president. These murders are less more news-worthy than Abu Graibh.

    The troops were expendable to the Obama Campaign that editted the CIA talking points.

  9. Raymond,

    Where does this information come from, that Stevens was supplying arms to al Qaeda?

    Then why would al Qaeda take him out?

  10. The first important news item was discussed on a Glen Beck radio show before the anniversary of 9-11.

    The discussion by Mr. Beck and his co-hosts related the questions about the State Department of the Obama administration having talks about releasing the Blind Sheik in jail for bombing the World Trade Center. Subsequent to this topic coming up, the White House released a statement from the Department of Justice which totally ruled out any activity where the prison term of the Blind Sheik would be terminated. He would remain in jail serving his full term.

    Beck and his co-hosts decided that this sounded good. However, they didn’t understand why it was Justice that made the declaration, when it was the State Department that was asserted to be participating in the discussions. They also commented that this item may bare further scrutiny in the future.

    On the anniversary of 9-11, the next play in the game, the murder of the ambassador and three other victims dumped a pile of pieces of the puzzle on the airways. Over the following month there was much confusion as to what happened. Much of the information caused confusion. This was because the news was fragmented and some of it was red herrings designed to throw the concerned public off on the wrong trails.

    After much questioning and leaks from many sources, there has emerged a picture of what happened.

    Armed men attacked the American Embassy and a safe house also used by both embassy staff and American intelligence personnel. It took very aggressive investigative journalism by mainly Fox News, but also by many radio talk shows to sort out what happened.

    The well-armed invaders executed a well-planned attacked which resulted in the trapping of the ambassador in an interior safe room. While this occurred, the embassy compound was blown up and set on fire. The attack lasted for several hours and went from the embassy grounds to the safe house annex located some distance away.

    The embassy security was overwhelmed and no help arrived to resist the invaders. Investigative evidence surfaced that for many weeks prior to 9-11, requests for increased security by the embassy went unheeded or was simply refused. There was even a story that the marine guards were deprived of ammunition for their weapons by the order of the Department of State.

    The ambassador and three brave men (two former navy seals among them) were murdered.

    In the weeks that followed this, the White House from the President and down the chain of command all declared that the attack was a spontaneous action that grew out of a protest about a movie purported to be an insult to Mohammed. This was shown to be untrue, and thus a subterfuge (red herring). The story was changing on a daily basis, because it lacked cohesiveness. It didn’t stand up under questioning. Eventually, all kinds of evidence was gathered and made it appear to be a planned act of terrorism whose success was enhanced by an appalling lack of security.

    After more than forty days, Fox News sorting through the information, presented a step-by-step timeline of the events. A bogus story line asserted by the White House Administration became apparent. The picture cleared-up to show what had really happened.

    Fox News even was able to present to the public how the ambassador died.

    Inside the burning facility, inside the safe room, the ambassador ended up crumpled on the floor. The invaders upon finding him thought he was dead. One of them checked and excitedly reported, “He is not dead! He is breathing!”

    At this announcement, according to Fox News’s special report, the gathered invaders became cheerful and in their language started shouting something like, “God is great, God is great!”

    They scooped up the body and raced him to the closest hospital in an attempt to save his life. Unfortunately he had too much lung damage from smoke inhalation and doctors were not able to save him.

    Now I know that this account of the high points leaves out a lot of the story. And I apologize for skipping over great investigative journalism. There are questions that haven’t been addressed as far as I know.

    Why did this event happen?

    The government administration falsely claimed that it was a spontaneous action to a bogus film. Why?

    People began calling this a scandal and that the government was doing a cover-up. Covering up what?

    I, Columbus Bob, see a picture here that I think answers these questions.

    I believe the key to understanding what this event was all about is to look again at the curious reaction the invaders had when they thought the ambassador was dead and discovered that he was alive. They were happy and cheered about his being alive.

    This caught my attention and struck me as a paradox. Weren’t they trying to kill him? If yes, why did the discovery he was still breathing make them so happy? Why did they do what they could to save his life?

    I believe they were not trying to kill him, but trying to capture him. This raid looks like a botched kidnapping. They wanted him for some reason.

    I believe they intended to trade him for the Blind Sheik, and that the administration of the United States prepared the scene for a kidnapping that would allow the release of the Blind Sheik.

    The steps leading up to 9-11 would follow the pattern by the State Department’s lack of “concern” about security, and subsequent standing down during the event failing to rescue the victims. The post events looking like a cover-up that would fit exactly what the U.S. Government would need to conceal from the citizens in a foiled kidnapping scam.

  11. There has been info out today that the military are getting very angry about this as a coverup; they’re talking about how quickly they could have gotten to Libya, but they didn’t know – that they never got an order. Some military retirees said that only the President can order troops into a foreign country, so being they didn’t get an order to respond, it is all obama’s responsibility.
    In addition alot of retired military and CIA “brass” / leaders, shared today they believe Petreaus was blackmailed about this…. , and after resigning he’s trying to get the info out. That if there was info that even mentioned a top CIA name aligned with the investigation that Holder as AG would have been notified within hours. That means that Holder got the info within weeks after investigation started (at the latest) – and that if Holder got the info it would have been shared with the President within hours (even if he was out of the country). And if Obama wasn’t aware, it would have been to allow him to say he didn’t have meaningful knowledge of it, and allow him to deny it.

  12. Taking out Gaddafi was not Obama’s idea. It was the two European thugs, Cameron and Sarkozy out for Libya’s assets that were driving it. On the American side, cackling Lady Macbeth at State who thought she could chalk it up to her resume was doing the heavy lifting. Obama seems detached from all this as apparently he was never full on for Gaddafi’s removal.

  13. Clinton, Holder and Obama: first they run hundreds of assault weapons to drug terrorists to get “incidents” to justify rescinding the Second Amendment.

    Now, they set up an ambassador kidnapping to smoke-screen the release of a terrorist superstar.

    All you useful idiots that vote for these filthy animals . . .

  14. That is the first time I’ve seen the hapless Sarkozy referred to as a “thug”.

    The conspiracy theories listed above are fascinating but spinning far in advance of the facts.

    For my part, I continue to believe that this is the least professional Whithouse in two decades and that there is no further thought than “yeah, that might work” to their plans.

    Benghazi is a tragedy, all the more so because it was 1) predictable and 2) unprepared for.

    State had lots of warnings but took no steps to address the concerns. The “why” relates to misguided political calculations with the Administration itself. We shallsee how it played out that day but I suspect that we will find that lethargy, sloth, and indecision controlled the President’s staff. They spent their time discussing the political ramifications and lost the moment to to their duty.

    You give the Administration far too much credit my friends.

    The French as “thugs”… Putin, maybe, but the limp wristed French, only in their defense of their language.

  15. “For my part, I continue to believe that this is the least professional Whithouse in two decades and that there is no further thought than “yeah, that might work” to their plans.”

    Agreed. A nice two word shorthand to explain anything this administration does is “political expidency”. The only thing good about Obama still being in the White House for the next four years is that he will be there to reap many of the disasters his fecklessness has sown.

  16. So Petreaus has obtained counsel:

    Now THAT isan interesting development. I read that to mean that he is going it on his own and has concluded that he has no friends. Everything he knows, classified or not, is now known to someone outside of the decision-making circle, someone with an ethical duty to protect Petreaus’ interest.

    This is about to get very interesting.

  17. I can see that there are many uncharitable minds on this forum and amongst many Americans! Phew! Why are some people already praying that the Benghazi issue should crash on Obama’s head with a view to impeaching him? You may not like President Obama for one reason or the other but it is quite uncharitable to pray for his misfortune just because your preferred candidate lost in the presidential election! I just cannot understand some Americans. You preach democracy to the rest of the world and virtually arm-twist other countries to uphold democratic tenets! And here are most of you not practicing what you preach when it comes to American situations. Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots? This is where I respect Paul Riyan, Mitt Romney’s running mate who said that Obama ran a better election and won ‘fair and square’! That should be the spirit. It was laughable to read the calls for secession by some States in the US, all because they did not have it their way! Tell me tomorrow how other nation would behold America when it came to preach to them about democratic tenets, people are now beginning to see as hackneyed and mere hypocrisy. The next we shall see is for these disgruntled Americans to use any subterranean means, fair or foul, to unseat the nation’s president and so achieving what they could not achieve through the ballot box! That’s a shame! Americans, grow up! It is now time for even developing countries like Myanmar and Zimbabwe to preach to you on the need to imbibe the principles of democracy! What a shame!

  18. “Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots?”

    Well now that you mention it, many of them, yes. Considering the results of his first term I can think only an idiot, a leftist ideologue or someone who wishes for government “freebies” would want more of the same.

    “Tell me tomorrow how other nation would behold America when it came to preach to them about democratic tenets, people are now beginning to see as hackneyed and mere hypocrisy”

    Rubbish. Elections are a method to determine who holds office. The outcome of an election does not eliminate criticism of the side that won. If it did, that would be a betrayal of democracy.

  19. Chi, You entirely miss the point of oppositions and, so, don’t understand what makes democratic systems work.

    All parties have their share of wise and foolish, well-intentioned and ill, well meaning and mlicious tyrants, etc. A system that presumes good intent and right action and that has no one watching those in charge is doomed. The “opposition” i s absolutely essential to democracy, even if the party you favor is in power.

    Benghazi matters because four Americans died because of what appears to be gross negligence. It matters because it appears that the Administration lied to Congress – a very serious matter indeed. It matters because it appears that our enemies directly assaulted our government and paid no consequence, potentially emboldening them.

    Withou an opposition, the party in power need not correct its defects. If you don’t understand that you are no friend to democracy.

  20. Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots?

    About 3/4 of the populace are willing to tell the pollster they do not follow public affairs and many of those who do lack a mental filing system which helps them make sense of things. They consume news reports but remember little. It is not that they are ‘idiots’. They know what they need to to earn a living and keep their kids out of jail. They often can make sense of little that is not palpable in their daily life. Their votes are distributed across the political spectrum.

    The difficulty we appear to be facing is that voting is now quite insensitive to conditions and results and people cast ballots as expressions of identity, filtering what they read and hear according to their prejudices about particular politicians. This is not a novel phenomenon and has long been common, but it appears that such voters are a large enough mass that the connection between conditions and balloting is broken. The capacity of the collectivity to aright itself (already frayed) is thus diminished. This occurs at a time when the calibre of our political elite has declined dramatically. Also, discourse about politics has grown utterly meretricious. (See, for example, the witless and gratuitous flaying of Sarah Palin).

  21. And THAT, my friends, is why I keep coming back to TAC.

    I’ve been trying to articulate what we are seeing but I couldn’t make sense of it. Art Deco’s statement seems to me to be spot on.

  22. Chi: Please bare in mind that although though the President Obama is The President of the U.S., he is not above the US law. And there is a real possibility he may have broken it, or failed to uphold his oath of office to protect the Constitution and the U.S.

  23. G-Veg, if you were to check the timeline of the ouster of Gaddafi you’ll see that it was largely driven by Cameron and Sarkozy. Pretty unfortunate for him that he took the benign George Bush as representative of the West.

  24. True enough Ivan. That gets to a major flaw in the Democrat Party’s base’s logic.

    To the Democrat Party’s core constituencies, Bush’s Iraq War was a war for oil and not in defense of freedom but Obama’s Libya War (we should be honest, there is small war and big war but the distinction between “war”, “police action”, and other euphamisms are distinctions without a difference) was a blow against tyranny. This views is ignorant and myopic. Libya’s oil was the point of the Libya’n war and US Allies, such as they are, were the primary benifactors.

    Either securing access to energy is a legitimate State interest, lawfully protected by force of arms or it is not. The Democrat Party wants it both ways: protecting oil interests under their president while being able to upbraid Republicans for the same impulses. We should call them on it.

    As for Sarkozy et al being “thugs”, it is the characterization of the French as “thuggish” that I find terribly funny.

    My grandmother’s favorite uncle died at Dunkirk and she never forgave the French for folding and leaving Brits to die. I suppose hiding in the celler due to air raids on Bristol didn’t raise the French in her estimation either. She used to tell this joke:

    She would ask “why are the French the only people in the world with tanned palms?” then shewould throw her hands up over her head in surrender.

    It was terribly funny to see her act it out and her views of the French as cowardly linger in my consciousness. Now that I’m older and better grasp how disastrous WWI was to the French I’m able to be more charitable to their folding to the Germans in WWII. France had the fighting spirit beaten out of them and they never recovered.

    Of course, the absurd French nationalism, that Gaulist knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells of American Imperialism is all the more intolerable. I haven’t forgotten the France wouldn’t let the US overfly France to bomb Ghadaffi under Reagan but thought it entirely proper to actually invade this time.

    The word “thug” makes me think of Zimbabwe’s regime, not of France. For a laugh on this subject, type “Black Adder French” as a YouTube search.

  25. Speaking of France, a good movie is “Joyeux Noel” (Happy Christmas) which is about World War I, even if it is sort of a peacenik movie but not excessively so, it’s cinematography and relative authenticity is grand. Holiday movie. For those who don’t know, yes, it is about the opposing sides getting together and celebrating on Christmas eve, the first year of that war, a historic fact.

    Worth perusing is how it seems French casualties in World War I are quite a bit higher than any allied power. So, perhaps some of the problem with World War II was that first World War was its preface. Poisoned gas and trench warfare, that must have been hard.

    That movie by the way, starts with the speeches by the Children which are taken from real statements made at that time I believe. If one watches the movie, those statements seem to imply England stirred up (not saying began or created) that war and sentiment. This I do not know and can not say however those statements by a French, English and German child may be read here:

    “English poem

    To rid? the map of every trace

    Of Germany and of the Hun,

    We must exterminate that race.

    We must not leave a single one.

    Heed not their children’s cries.

    Best slay all now, the women, too

    Or else, someday again they’ll rise

    Which, if they’re dead, they cannot do.”

    Those are very serious words.

    The movie’s contingent of British are in fact, Scottish so one feels a bit detached from the British Empire part.

    England and France have a long history of wars prior to these modern times. There’s a lot here.

  26. You would have to be brave indeed to take up arms against the Nazis after France surrendered.

    I generalize and tar unfairly. France was a shattered hulk when Germany invaded. She had left her marshall spirit in the trenches, had too few men to defend her long borders and failed to take Hitler’s threat seriously until it was too late.

    I diverted the discussion to make a nationality joke. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: