Former Defense & CIA Director Leon Panetta Says … From Beginning, I Thought Benghazi Was a “Terrorist Attack”

Former Defense & CIA Director Leon Panetta in an interview with NBC Today stated that from the beginning, he thought the attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012 was a “Terrorist Attack”. But of course that did not go along with Barack Obama’s reelection narrative that Al-Qaeda was on the run. Instead, Obama and his minions would blame the attack on a video. Lately, Panetta has been highly critical of Obama. It is just too bad he did not speak up or resign at the time out of principle. But as Panaetta’s buddy Hillary Clinton says, “What difference does it make?”

“You know, I didn’t have any specific information but, the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration there’s something else going on. And, I just from the very beginning sensed that this was an attack. This was a terrorist attack.”

Eleanor Clift Ludicrous Comments on Benghazi Terror Attacks … “Ambassador Stevens Wasn’t Murdered, He Died Of Smoke Inhalation”

Some Liberal moonbats will go to no ends to protect Hillary Clinton from her actions, or lack there of in Benghazi, including making an ass of them self.

Eleanor Clift has said some pretty ignorant things over the years, but this one might just take the cake. Not so much for her partisan, liberal, progressive partisan Democrat view point, but for the fact that she would continue to propagate a lie, a cover-up and a tape at the expense of a deceased US Ambassador. Eleanor Clift actually said on  The McLaughlin Report, “I would like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered, he died of smoke inhalation in a safe room in that CIA installation.”. SICK, SICK, SICK!!!

WOW … can we just say, LIAR!!! It is safe to say that no one can ever take this fool seriously anymore. She has been a liberal apologist for years, but this is beyond the pale and crazy talk. Of course her main liberal agenda was to protect Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democrat presidential nominee. Clift ended her nonsensical ramblings by saying, “and its still a CIA and if you are going to put people on trial we should put David  Petraeus on trail, not Hillary Clinton.”

Clift went on to continue to blame the video tape, which has all but been debunked at this point. Way to be kept in the informational loop Elenore. It is time to put Elenore out to politic pundit pasture. As Red State opines regarding the misguided Clift, “Next she’ll tell us that the 30o girls in Nigeria weren’t kidnapped by Islamic terrorists..they were actually just out on a school field trip, and are lost  in the woods.”

Get used to this folks, defend, deflect, detract and lie to at all cost to protect Hillary Clinton from her record.

Real Clear Politics:

ELEANOR CLIFT: I would like to point out Ambassador Stevens was not murdered. He died of smoke inhalation in the safe room in that CIA installation.

SUSAN FERRECHIO: I don’t think that’s a fact, Eleanor.

CLIFT: I think that is a fact.

FERRECHIO: I’ve heard a drastically different story from people who are also in the know about that. So, I don’t think it is –

PAT BUCHANAN: It was a terrorist attack, Eleanor. He was murdered in a terrorist attack.

CLIFT: It was an opportunistic terrorist attack that grew out of that video.

BUCHANAN: The video had nothing to do with it.

CLIFT: There were demonstrations across the world.

Barack Obama White House Denies Editing Out “Terror” From Benghazi Talking Points

It all depends on what is, is … Welcome to Obama’s ‘Watergate’, only this time Americans died. 

The Obama White House has denied editing the talking points regarding the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans including Ambassador Stevens. However, this contradicts former CIA director  David Petraeus’ remarks that he had made behind closed doors to a Congressional committee.  Petraeus told lawmakers that from the onset of the investigation about the September 11 attack, US intelligence pointed to al Qaeda affiliates. So who made the edits, who insisted the edits be made and who signed off on them? The edits would have been made after the statements had left the CIA for review by the Defense and State departments, ultimately landing at the White House. Sorry, but there has to be a simple paper trial of how this document changed and who changed and approved the changes. Barack Obama promised transparency and it is about time he is held accountable for such.

Obama continues to laugh at “We the People” as he played politics with the death of four brave souls as America was too busy taxing the rich 

The White House yesterday denied it edited talking points about the terrorist attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya — contradicting remarks made a day earlier by disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus.

“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.

“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

One would think that a President, a Commander in Chief would be furious and demand answers to who edited talking points that put out a false narrative when four Americans died. However, not when it was made political and had to be covered up until after an election. In Obama’s world, the ends justify the means.

Who are you going to believe America? Think Obama’s WH did not edit the talking points or have a hand in taking the “terror” out? This from the same Obama Administration that changed the “WAR ON TERROR” to read as an “OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATION”.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus Heads to Capital Hill, Petraeus To Testify He Knew Libya Was Terrorism ‘Almost Immediately’


After much speculation as to whether former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus would testify this week in front of lawmakers regarding the attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of four Americans. It turns out that  Petraeus will and is presently testifying this morning under oath. The question is, what will Petraeus say? Petraeus is presently testifying behind closed doors. Oh to be a fly on the wall.

Petraeus is under investigation by the agency for possible wrongdoing, though that’s not the subject of the closed-door hearings he is set to attend Friday. The September attack in Benghazi, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, created a political firestorm, with Republicans claiming that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence.

As reported at, they are reporting that David Petraeus will testify that he knew the attacks in Benghazi were a result of terrorism immediately. This certainly would contradict the Obama administration narrative and the faux talking points that UN Ambassador Rice spewed on five Sunday talk shows. This Petraeus testimony would be much different from what he initially said. Also being reported,Petraeus  told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to  Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration. The Gateway Pundit reminds us that maybe it was the third email sent to the White House on the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack that blamed an Al-Qaeda-linked group for the attack on the consulate that was the obvious signal.

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.

Brian in a Blue State

Charles Krauthammer: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job … White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi

QUID PRO QUO?  So why does a sex scandal make it impossible for a CIA director like General David Petraeus to keep his job? Being black mailed and pressured to do and say things that are not true of course. But what happens when the blackmail and pressure comes from within, like the White House?

Charles Krauthammer has once again got it 100% correct. Appearing on Fox News’s Special Report, Krauthammer stated that the Obama White House used David Petraeus’s affair to get the CIA director to give favorable testimony about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Petraeus thought he could keep his job after he knew he was being investigated for his “extramarital affair” and most likely went before the Congressional hearing and told a story to save his job by siding with the Obama administration ridiculous story that the attack was the result of a video tape. David Petraeus, of all people, who is an expert on terrorism knew better. But when some one has your professional career in their hands … he followed the Obama party line.

“His job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.”

Transcript from News Busters:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?

KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe.

Doug Ross has the timeline and one pretty much has to have no brain to think that Obama, the WH and his reelection folks did not know about the Petraeus investigation.

Does anyone really think that the Obama White House did not know about the investigation that not only looks into CIA director Gen. Petraeus, but also Gen. Allen,the Commander of the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Come on folks, really? Remember the Obama philosophy on never letting a crisis go to waste.

Next Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
E-mail It