CBS News: Office of the Director of National Intelligence Edited al Qaeda References from CIA Benghazi Attack Talking Points

BENGHAZIGATE … The mad scramble by Obama White House and lapdog media to find a scape-goat.

CBS News is reporting that it was he Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) that cut the  ”al Qaeda” and “terrorism” references from the Benghazi, Libya consulate attacks that left four Americans dead including Ambassador Stevens. The same James Clapper DNI that has previously denied making any such edits. However, as aptly stated by the Ace of Spades, Clapper is the perfect Obama appointee stooge to make such political changes to the Benghazi talking points to scrub any references of terrorism at the request of the Obama White House.

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

As stated at Michelle Malkin, the inevitable conclusion of the editing mystery is that it was “Colonel Mustard in the study with the candlestick.” Here is the insanity and obvious politicization of the Benghazi talking points. Supposedly the DNI says it struck the references to Al Qaeda from the talking points because that connection was “too tenuous.” However, they added references to the YouTube video and a spontaneous protest, when there was no evidence at all that indicated this and to the contrary, there was evidence debunking this narrative.

America, the buck stops with who? One really has to question why Barack Obama is not more upset and does not want to find answers as to Benghazi. Four Americans were murdered and it as if he could care less.

CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns Over ‘Extramarital Affair’ … Petraeus will not Testify Before Congressional Oversight Committees Next week on Benghazi

ALL THE PRESIDENTS CONVENIENT RESIGNING MEN,  THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMM …

CIA Director, General David Petraeus has resigned from the Obama Administration over an extramarital affair. What interesting timing. Petraeus was set to testify before Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Are we supposed to believe that the Obama White House did not know of this resignation prior to the 2012 Presidential election? Or was this just another scandal that was hid from the American public and the play clock run out on so that Obama could be reelected? I am sure even the MSM would have asked some questions if Petraeus resigned prior to the election and what that meant for Obama foreign policy.

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, General David Petraeus, the CIA Director, has resigned from the administration over an extramarital affair. Petraeus was slated to testify before Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, “With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be ‘stunned’ by the announcement.”

This is only the latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.   The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.

Talk about an Obama administration of convenient timing. As LT. COL. RALPH PETERS (VIDEO) stated, the timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. The Benghazi terror attack on the 9-11 anniversary and now a resignation a week before he was set to testify under oath in front of Congress. Hmm.

As stated at the Weekly Standard, the timing of this announcement is some what suspect.  It is being reported that Petraeus will not testify next week before congressional oversight committees on Benghazi as initially planned. How absolutely convenient for Barack Obama and his continued stonewalling and cover up of what happened before, during and after in Benghazi.

Congressional Republicans were furious with Petraeus for what they described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD as “misleading” testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee on September 14. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there. Other members of Congress were particularly interested in questioning Petraeus about why crucial details about those attacks were left out of “talking points” the CIA prepared for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Among those details: the existence of a communications intercept between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks. The level of frustration with the CIA and Petraeus had led several top Republican lawmakers to consider calling for his resignation in late October.   Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeus’s resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.

Just curious, how would the news of   Petraeus’ resignation have played if this occurred prior to the election?

MSM Bias … CBS Tries to Defend Withholding Key Part Of Obama Interview Where He Wouldn’t Call Benghazi A Terror Attack (Assassination of Ambassador Stevens)

More MSM bias and how the Corrupt Media Complex is nothing more than the Obama propaganda outlet meant to deceive the American public.

As reported at the Politico, CBS has been caught with their hand in the defend Obama at all cost cookie jar as they try and defend not airing a key portion of their ’60 Minutes’ interview where Obama wouldn’t call the Benghazi terror attack and the assassination of Ambassador Stevens a terror attack. This is the kind of interview that any media outlet dreams of … one with the president and the most important news of the day with an issue like terrorism. A sure fire ratings grabbers. Not for CBS, who inexplicably withheld the President’s comments so to protect their candidate.

Benghazi, the ‘Watergate” of our times and no MSM to hold a president accountable

Pic Hat Tip: Vanderbilt ’12

CBS News is continuing to draw fire for withholding footage of a Sept. 12 interview with President Barack Obama in which he said it was “too early to tell” whether or not the previous day’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, had been an act of terror.

That remark, which was not included in the “60 Minutes” package that first aired on Sept. 23, was also left out of a subsequent package that aired in the days following the second presidential debate, when President Obama said that he had called the attack “an act of terror” in his Rose Garden address on Sept. 12, which took place before the interview. The remark was not released until yesterday, a fact Bret Baier of Fox News called attention to earlier today.

In interviews with POLITICO, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said CBS had been “explicitly misleading” in order “to protect President Obama.” Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was “dumbstruck” by the network’s decision not to report on such a newsworthy item. On Fox News, Sen. John McCain said CBS was “not carrying out their responsibilities of informing the American people,” while conservative columnist Byron York wrote on Twitter that the network had “a scandal on their hands.”

Meanwhile, sources at rival television networks, who declined to speak on the record, expressed confusion over CBS’s decision.

“It’s surprising they held on to any of it,” one source said. “If [we had the interview], we would’ve put that stuff out the second it became news — again — after the debate. All of it.”

So what was the part of the interview that was cut from “We the People”? How about what might be the most key part of the interview in asking Obama whether the attack was a terrorist one or not? Shameful, simply shameful. But then again as Weasel Zippers sarcastically notes, it is not as though this was news worthy.

In the interview conducted on Sept. 12, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” asked the president about his remarks in the Rose Garden: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?,” Kroft asked.

“Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans,” Obama said.

Hmm, I thought that Obama claimed, echoed by CNN’s Candy Crowley as she came to Obama’s aid, that Obama had called it a terror attack in the Rose Garden as he falsely stated during the 2nd Presidential debate?

Barack Obama is only at 48% in the polls because of a lying, deceitful and corrupt bias media that would do anything to make sure he was reelected including withholding important information from We the People.

As stated at Legal Insurrection, some one at CBS will most certainly be fired for this. However, not for withholding the clip, but for publishing it at all. Sadly, this is probably more fact than fiction. Is it any wonder why the MSM has not pressed Barack Obama on Benghazi and the murder of four Americans. We can only imagine how the story would have been pursued if the president was a Republican.

There is no question that the American people deserved answers and to be told by their president what he knew and when he knew it. However, with a bias MSM, those things do not pertain to democrat presidents and especially this one who the media feels the need to protect and coddle at all cost.

Benghazi-Gate: Unbelievable, Key Terror Task Force, Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG), Not Convened During Benghazi Consulate Attack

BARACK OBAMA … EPIC FAILURE AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

Is this the email that Newt Gingrich mentioned the other night that news outlets were rumored to have and they are damning to Obama and his incompetence and dereliction of duty in handling Benghazi.

As reported at CBS News, counterterrorism sources and internal emails express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack. The emails are said to have come from unidentified sources in the State department, the U.S. military and the Justice Department. Hmm, think these folks are tired of being thrown under the bus by Obama and his stonewalling of what really happened?

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

“The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

The question is, how could the Counterterrorism Security Group not be  convened after such an attack at Benghazi that the WH et all saw in real time? As Weasil Zippers says, I guess the terror experts were not convened because Obama had decimated al-Qaeda. Sure he did.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News “From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses.”

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents “would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success.”

Let’s remember Obama’s so called promise to get to the bottom of what happened, or did not as the case may be. Obama stated that people would be held responsible and that he has also claimed that “the minute [he] found out what was going on” he issued a directive to “make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do.” As reported at NRO, the latest reports, though, suggest otherwise.

On Friday, Fox News reported that CIA operators in a position to provide air support were told to “stand down.” Now, Eli Lake reports that the State Department did not request backup on the night the attacks took place. Why?

More from the Lonely Conservative, the CIA is now saying that they sent in operatives to Libya to save the diplomats. Hmm, why now are they saying it with mere days before the election?

Yes, Benghazi-Gate makes Watergate pale in comparison.

LVRJ Rips Obama over Benghazi Terrorist Blunder, Lies and Cover Up … Obama unworthy commander-in-chief

No truer words have ever been spoken … the Las Vegas Review Journal reports that President Barack Obama is unworthy of being Commander in Chief.

The LVRJ blast Barack Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attacks that gave rise to the death of four Americans including US Ambassador Stevens. The Obama administration botched Benghazi before, during and after the attacks. We are always very critical of the MSM; however, we give kudos when it is deserved. It certainly is here.

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.

I have to admit I am impressed by the LVRJ and their extremely truthful accounts of this story and Obama’s failure as Commander in Chief. However, the MSM has all but avoided it, namely the TV media. Instead of providing answers to things that he knows first hand, Obama has dodged the questions so the the outcome is done after the election. Is that what we need as a Commander in Chief, a president that would hold off on the truth of the death of 4 Americans for his own political gain?

Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.

Read the full story HERE, it is an eye opener, especially coming from the MSM. Could this have an affect in Nevada voting? The end result is that Obama has lost the right yo be president.