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’

BENGHAZI-GATE COULD ESCALATE TODAY WITH PETRAEUS TESTIMONY.

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 Breitbart.com, 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

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.

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.