Petraeus Testifies the CIA Approved Susan Rice's Talking Points

Petraeus Testifies the CIA Approved Susan Rice’s Talking Points

Right wing still going nuts

PoliticsNovember 2012 • Views: 28,262

The weird Republican conspiracy theories about the Benghazi attack are getting even weirder today, as David Petraeus testifies at a closed-door hearing and the right wing blogs fly into a frenzy of distorted fantasizing. Every single right wing blogger is hyperventilating over this today, right on cue like the parrots they are.

But here’s the bottom line to the latest episode of this cynical attempt to exploit a tragedy in order to harm the President: GOP Rep Admits CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador’s Talking Points on Libya.

That’s right; Peter King was forced to admit that the talking points used by Amb. Susan Rice were approved by the CIA:

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus� statements. Rice�s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice�s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn�t know.

Q: He didn�t know? What do you mean he didn�t know?

KING: They were not involved � it was done, the process was completed and they said, �Ok go with those talking points.� Again it�s interagency � I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said �OK� to the revised report �

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK�d it to go. Yeah, they said �Okay for it to go.�

Jump to bottom

89 comments

Kragar Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:19:19am

"HE DIDN"T BACK UP OUR VERSION OF EVENTS! OMG! OBAMA IS BLACKMAILING HIM!ELEVENTY!!111!!!!
///

makeitstop Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:19:46am

From what I read this morning, McCain didn't have a whole lot to say after the testimony, either.

Kinda shoots a big hole in their criticisms of Susan Rice. But I'm sure everyone is looking at the testimony and will have a shiny new conspiracy theory ready to go in no time flat.
/

Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:20:49am

The wingnut conspiracy crowd is trying to make a big deal out of Petraeus's statement that he believed it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.

And I'm still completely baffled about why this is supposed to be evidence of something dastardly on the part of the President. Suppose he had come out that night and said "Terrorism! Terror! It was a terror attack! By terrorists! Terror, I say!"

Does anyone believe the right wing wouldn't still be trying to use this tragedy against him?

It's phony through and through. The cynicism is breathtaking.

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:21:02am

ICYMI AT #ABLC: Soledad O'Brien Challenges The Republican's Attack On Amb. Susan Rice bit.ly/ZGCwQf by @extremeliberal #p2 #TFY

— Imani ABL (@AngryBlackLady) November 16, 2012

ABL: "Watch as Soledad O’Brien and Charles Blow make Republican congressman Joe Heck look rather foolish and reveal how misguided the Republican attack on Ambassador Susan Rice is."

Joe Heck doggedly performing the GOP goalpost wheelie

dragonath Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:21:25am

I won't be able to make up my mind until I get John McCain's opinion ///

Origuy Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:22:10am

Wait a minute! Petraeus testified after all? But I thought Obama cooked up the whole scheme so that he wouldn't! You mean that the Intelligence Committee found their subpoena forms?

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:22:25am

John McCain is a sad old man.

Political Atheist Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:22:38am

"Classified vs Unclassified" information is what is said to explain the discrepancy now.

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) said the confusion over terrorist attacks vs. demonstrations at Benghazi might be chalked up to the difference between classified and unclassified talking points.
(Also on POLITICO: No perfect choice to replace Petraeus)

“There may have been confusion with the unclassified talking points. … Perhaps there’s greater clarity in the classified talking points,” Langevin told reporters. “There were perhaps some subtleties that were used that may have been understood by some to mean one thing, where others may have had a different understanding of words — for example, ‘extremist’ versus ‘terrorist.’”
(Also on POLITICO: Petraeus: I didn't quit over Libya)

Petraeus told lawmakers the CIA believed it to be a terrorist attack from the beginning.

“I told him in my questions that I had a very different recollection of that,” said King , the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee. “The clear impression was given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it rose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack.”

Read more: [Link: www.politico.com...]

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:23:49am

re: #5 dragonath

I won't be able to make up my mind until I get John McCain's opinion ///

This is excellent news for John McCain!

///

jamesfirecat Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:25:07am

//Well now that he's said that I'm sure that we will never again have to listen to anyone complaining on this issue...

Obdicut Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:25:30am

re: #8 Daniel Ballard

“I told him in my questions that I had a very different recollection of that,” said King , the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee. “The clear impression was given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it rose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack.”

Well, he doesn't listen too good. There was nothing said about an overwhelming amount of evidence.

A Mom Anon Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:25:32am

re: #7 jaunte

Bitter. Sad, mean, and bitter. I'm sure he's just a joy to spend any amount of time around.

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:26:11am

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY):

“The stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city today emanates from this room. I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about the President of the United States and others in the administration using [the] terms ‘deliberate’, ‘lies’, ‘unmitigated gall’, ‘malfeasance,’ which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, ‘disgust’, ‘coverups’. If you want to know who is responsible in this town, buy yourself a mirror!”

“...the audacity to come here” when the administration requested, for worldwide security, “$440 million more than you guys wanted to provide. And the answer is that you damn didn’t provide it! You REDUCED what the administration asked for to protect these people. Ask not who the guilty party is, it’s you! It is us. It is this committee, and the things that we insist that we need have to cost money.”

Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:28:55am

re: #11 Obdicut

Well, he doesn't listen too good. There was nothing said about an overwhelming amount of evidence.

It's simply a lie. In actual fact, Susan Rice was extremely clear that this was preliminary information and that it probably would change.

Do the Republicans really believe this is a winning issue for them? Their dishonesty is incredibly obvious, and all they're doing is further damaging themselves after a humiliating election.

It's obsessive, dysfunctional behavior.

erik_t Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:30:07am

It's really amazing to me that the GOP really thinks this is their best issue going forward. Crazed frothy rants about four Americans getting killed in a dangerous and unstable country seven or eight weeks ago.

Do they really have nothing else to talk about?

DelusionDeluge Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:31:43am

The bottom line is that the attack could have been a product of demonstrations over the video AND could have been a terrorist attack AND could have been coordinated in some way AND could have been spontaneous. Who on Earth would count any of those things out in the days right after the attack? And if we all agree it was an attack of some kind, and if the agencies did indeed release everything that happened during and after the attack, then all we're left with is crazed righties essentially saying they are more informed as to what is going on in the head of extremists than Obama or sane people. They may be on to something there, for sure.

A Mom Anon Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:32:13am

re: #13 jaunte

I think this is part of what's at the heart of the wingnut pants shitting going on about Benghazi. They know they cut the funding, or wouldn't approve any more and so they're jumping up and down and calling this worse than Watergate and screaming about obamacorruption to distract from that little bit of reality.

Seriously, could we at least have a basic civics, history and government exam for anyone considering running for office? Half of these numbskulls don't even know the actual description of the job they're supposed to be doing or how the government even works.

Bulworth Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:32:20am

“I told him in my questions that I had a very different recollection of that,” said King , the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee. “The clear impression was given by Fox News that the Administration said ~~was that~~ the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it rose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack.”

I think this is what he meant to say.

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:32:53am

re: #16 DelusionDeluge

It's just not outrageous without a false dichotomy.

Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:33:30am

By the way:

Views of Hamas mostly negative in Muslim nations we've surveyed twitter.com/RichardWike/st...
— Richard Wike (@RichardWike) November 16, 2012

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:35:17am

If the Democrats really were socialists and closet communists bent on enslaving the white population, whitey would be out of luck because there is no effective opposition.
With Mitt now designated as a RINO loser, the tea party radio-right is fully in control of the Republican Party. Their leadership, the radio hosts and bloggers, are yammering non-stop about Benghazi. And to what end? Do they really think they can impeach Obama over it? Even if they do, their distorted time-lines and ignorant assumptions will be blown to bits in open testimony even before the Senate votes for acquittal.
The real GOP leadership is getting its ratings and hits up, though, and ad revenue and merchandise sales are no doubt increasing. That is their only real objective. It will be like that from now on, with the Democrats essentially running a one-party state while a mob of cynical clowns toss out increasingly hysterical marketing ploys in an attempt to pass themselves off as some kind of alternative.

Bulworth Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:39:59am

"With Mitt now designated as a RINO loser, the tea party radio-right is fully in control of the Republican Party. Their leadership, the radio hosts and bloggers, are yammering non-stop about Benghazi. And to what end? "

Any minute now the Very Serious leaders of the Republican Party who want to end their party's reputation for idiotness will publicly demand that Pete King, McCain and Graham cease and desist from any more idiocy, for the good of the party. /

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:40:07am

Alternate hed for @danamilbank column: Don't Mess With the Clintons washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-...
— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) November 16, 2012

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:41:27am

re: #22 Bulworth

Any minute now the Very Serious leaders of the Republican Party who want to end their party's reputation for idiotness will publicly demand that Pete King, McCain and Graham cease and desist from any more idiocy, for the good of the party. /

Meghan McCain: If GOP doesn't wake up, I may leave the party thkpr.gs/QMlm2e
— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) November 16, 2012

Heh.

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:42:49am

Books, DVDs, home-schooling supplies, emergency generators, guns, ammunition, rural real estate, GOLD, freeze-dried foods, union busting seminars, and so on. The post-rational GOP has become the marketing framework for an enormous market.

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:44:20am

re: #22 Bulworth

Any minute now the Very Serious leaders of the Republican Party who want to end their party's reputation for idiotness will publicly demand that Pete King, McCain and Graham cease and desist from any more idiocy, for the good of the party. /

About as likely as me being elected Pope; maybe less since the Pope and I actually exist while Very Serious Republican leaders apparently do not.

GunstarGreen Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:44:45am

re: #15 erik_t

It's really amazing to me that the GOP really thinks this is their best issue going forward. Crazed frothy rants about four Americans getting killed in a dangerous and unstable country seven or eight weeks ago.

Do they really have nothing else to talk about?

The economy is likely getting to a stage where they won't be able to stick their fingers in their ears and scream JOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBS for much longer. Right now they're in Target Acquisition Mode, desperately grabbing around for the next thing they can blame the President for for the next four years when their economic talking points fall through.

erik_t Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:46:59am

re: #27 GunstarGreen

The economy is likely getting to a stage where they won't be able to stick their fingers in their ears and scream JOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBS for much longer. Right now they're in Target Acquisition Mode, desperately grabbing around for the next thing they can blame the President for for the next four years when their economic talking points fall through.

GOP: I love... homophobia.
GOP: I love... economy.
USA: GOP, are you just looking at things in the world and saying that you love them?
GOP: I love Benghazi.
USA: Do you really love Benghazi, or are you just saying it because you saw it?
GOP: I love Benghazi. I love Benghazi.

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:47:34am

re: #27 GunstarGreen

The economy is likely getting to a stage where they won't be able to stick their fingers in their ears and scream JOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBS for much longer. Right now they're in Target Acquisition Mode, desperately grabbing around for the next thing they can blame the President for for the next four years when their economic talking points fall through.

If the reactions on Facebook are anything to go by, it's Obama's fault that Hostess is going under. You know, because of the unions or something.

Never mind the half-dozen CEOs in the last decade. Never mind multiple bankruptcies in the last six years. It's Obama's fault that Twinkies died because of reasons.

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:47:45am

Benghazi Scandalmongering Takes a Hit Today

David Petraeus, late of the CIA, testified today before the Senate. Just by doing this, he batted down one of the dumber conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi, namely that the expose of his affair with Paula Broadwell—or the coverup of his affair prior to the election, depending on which account you read—was somehow designed to prevent him from testifying before Congress. As it turns out, Congress can subpoena anyone it wants, so this was moronic from the start. And in the event, Petraeus was happy to testify voluntarily and no one tried to stop him.

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:48:05am

they slept thru election; RT @green_footballs Currently on the front page of #Breitbart.com: EIGHT posts hyperventilating about Benghazi.
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) November 16, 2012

Skip Intro Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:50:44am

re: #14 Charles Johnson

It's simply a lie. In actual fact, Susan Rice was extremely clear that this was preliminary information and that it probably would change.

Do the Republicans really believe this is a winning issue for them? Their dishonesty is incredibly obvious, and all they're doing is further damaging themselves after a humiliating election.

It's obsessive, dysfunctional behavior.

As long as the Republicans only play to their talk radio/Fox News echo chamber, it is. Obviously, they haven't learned a damn thing from the election, other that they'll do a better job suppressing the vote next time.

Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:52:00am

The GOP is acting like a junkie who knows his habit is killing him, but just can't stop.
— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) November 16, 2012

Targetpractice Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:52:17am

re: #33 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

"Dude, I can quit anytime I want!"

Skip Intro Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:53:36am

re: #24 Lidane

Related:

Meghan McCain: If GOP Doesn’t Wake Up, May Leave Party

Heh.

I'm not sure that's much of a threat. Maybe, as a start, she could try waking up her dad.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:55:19am

re: #26 Shiplord Kirel

About as likely as me being elected Pope; maybe less since the Pope and I actually exist while Very Serious Republican leaders apparently do not.

Mitt Romney tries to be very Serious, but he just came out very Severe.

jamesfirecat Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:55:46am

re: #33 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

I'm a rage-aholic! I just can't live without rage-ahol!

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:56:51am

re: #37 jamesfirecat

I'm a rage-aholic! I just can't live without rage-ahol!

I'm sure Budweiser will market a beer with extra rage-ahol shortly.

aagcobb Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:57:46am

re: #24 Lidane

Related:

[Embedded content]

Heh.

Listen to your little girl, Senator McCain. If you can't even keep her, the GOP has lost the future.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:58:15am

This is all liberal socialist bullshit! We know she was told what to say by the White House to cover up...something...err, because!!! Just listen as she claims that maybe this wasn't an attack by al-qaeda terrorists that had been planned for months!!! All tru muricans know that is a lie...because...uhh, Fox Entertainment Media tells us it is!!!

Youtube Video

Actually what she said was entirely correct as far as what we knew then, and in fact is still mostly correct in light of what we know now, good luck trying to make a scandal out of it idiots.

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 11:59:12am

Fast n' Benghazi Furious

Bulworth Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:01:24pm

re: #31 Lidane

Breaking: New Gallop Poll shows race for the WH a dead-heat.

Developing....

Ming Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:01:54pm

re: #3 Charles Johnson

And I'm still completely baffled about why this is supposed to be evidence of something dastardly on the part of the President.

It's worthwhile to remember that there is no substance to this entire "Benghazi controversy". It's like arguing about whether Joe Biden wore a green tie or a purple tie on the day of the Benghazi attack.

We really need Republicans and Democrats to have intelligent discussions about how these four deaths could have been prevented. But that won't happen, thanks to all the mindless shouting.

Targetpractice Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:01:56pm

Yeah, the business owner who's a regular at our shop came in to day for his usual sub and couldn't hold back his glee at this latest "revelation." And also seemed to have the same level of glee for Hostess going into bankruptcy again, if only because he believes it will be blamed on Obama.

Targetpractice Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:03:21pm

re: #42 Bulworth

Breaking: New Gallop Poll shows race for the WH a dead-heat.

Developing....

Yes, but what does Nate Silver show the odds at?

wrenchwench Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:05:28pm

re: #41 jaunte

Fast n' Benghazi Furious

Darrell Issa Rides Again

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:05:35pm

re: #42 Bulworth

Breaking: New Gallop Poll shows race for the WH a dead-heat.

Developing....

I think in this case "dead-heat" is the corpse of the losing campaign being cremated to reduce the stink of the rotting remains.
/

BongCrodny Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:06:03pm

re: #2 makeitstop

From what I read this morning, McCain didn't have a whole lot to say after the testimony, either.

Kinda shoots a big hole in their criticisms of Susan Rice. But I'm sure everyone is looking at the testimony and will have a shiny new conspiracy theory ready to go in no time flat.
/

McCain's "bark first, think later" was pretty annoying, but at least it was somewhat better than the "bark first, bark louder later" mentality.

aagcobb Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:06:11pm

re: #29 Lidane

If the reactions on Facebook are anything to go by, it's Obama's fault that Hostess is going under. You know, because of the unions or something.

Never mind the half-dozen CEOs in the last decade. Never mind multiple bankruptcies in the last six years. It's Obama's fault that Twinkies died because of reasons.

Twinkies aren't going to die; they will just be bought by another company in the liquidation.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:07:09pm

re: #49 aagcobb

Twinkies aren't going to die; they will just be bought by another company in the liquidation.

And Fort Knox is full of Twinkies as well. National dessert cake reserve and all that.

erik_t Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:07:22pm

re: #48 BongCrodny

McCain's "bark first, think later" was pretty annoying, but at least it was somewhat better than the "bark first, bark louder later" mentality.

It's like a 2008 butthurt vuvuzela.

wrenchwench Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:07:48pm

re: #44 Targetpractice

Yeah, the business owner who's a regular at our shop came in to day for his usual sub and couldn't hold back his glee at this latest "revelation." And also seemed to have the same level of glee for Hostess going into bankruptcy again, if only because he believes it will be blamed on Obama.

They should blame the Hostess thing on Michelle Obama, because she planted vegetables in the White House lawn.

A Man for all Seasons Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:08:46pm

These days all the GOP does in Congressional investigations is just throw shit against the wall and freak out over whatever sticks. The party has become rabid and amateur hour in it's existence.

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:08:47pm

re: #49 aagcobb

Twinkies aren't going to die; they will just be bought by another company in the liquidation.

That's what I've been pointing out to people. The brands will survive. There's no way that a company like Bimbo would let the Hostess brands slip past them. Someone will pay for those brands, recipes, and trademarks.

Targetpractice Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:09:39pm

re: #48 BongCrodny

McCain's "bark first, think later" was pretty annoying, but at least it was somewhat better than the "bark first, bark louder later" mentality.

Appropriate picture for McCain these days.

Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:10:29pm

re: #43 Ming

We really need Republicans and Democrats to have intelligent discussions about how these four deaths could have been prevented. But that won't happen, thanks to all the mindless shouting.

Agreed. Although I'm very interested in what happened in Benghazi I have no interest in the politically motivated attacks or defense. As far as I can tell today's hearings and testimony included nothing new or interesting.

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:11:03pm

re: #53 BenghaziHoops

These days all the GOP does in Congressional investigations is just throw shit against the wall and freak out over whatever sticks. The party has become rabid and amateur hour in it's existence.

It's a replay of their derp and fail from the Clinton years, but on steroids.

Targetpractice Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:12:14pm

re: #57 Lidane

It's a replay of their derp and fail from the Clinton years, but on steroids.

Funny you should say that, one of Josh Marshell's blog posts was an excerpt from a reader who stated that this whole thing sounds more and more like Whitewater all over again.

aagcobb Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:12:23pm

What would a rational conservative GOP look like?
It would support policies which promotes marriage rather than focusing on preventing same-sex marriage.
It would promote effective family planning and contraceptives which could greatly reduce the abortion rate.
It would support the Dream Act as supporting the assimilation of immigrants, the central story of the American Dream.
It would support a balanced approach to long term deficit reduction.
It would recognize the importance of federal investment in infrastructure and education, like when we enacted the GI Bill and built the interstate highway system.
It would support promoting democratic reform abroad while avoiding reckless military adventures.

That would be a GOP I could support.

Eventual Carrion Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:12:25pm

re: #44 Targetpractice

Yeah, the business owner who's a regular at our shop came in to day for his usual sub and couldn't hold back his glee at this latest "revelation." And also seemed to have the same level of glee for Hostess going into bankruptcy again, if only because he believes it will be blamed on Obama.

Wonder who's fault it was for their 2004 bankruptcy? Bush the Lesser?

Targetpractice Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:13:28pm

re: #60 Eventual Carrion

Wonder who's fault it was for their 2004 bankruptcy? Bush the Lesser?

I mentioned they'd been in and out of bankruptcy before, but the cognitive dissonance kicked in and he brushed it off as "unions," who of course are totally pulling Obama's strings...or was it the other way around?

Bulworth Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:13:50pm

re: #60 Eventual Carrion

Obama spoke at the DNC that year, so Obama. //

jvic Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:15:26pm

Yahoo posts an AP account (boldface mine):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

Makes sense & sounds prudent: after being briefed on 9/11, Orrin Hatch blabbed to the press that the government had the capability to monitor terrorism suspects' cell phones.

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:15:29pm

re: #60 Eventual Carrion

Wonder who's fault it was for their 2004 bankruptcy? Bush the Lesser?

Duh. The unions, of course.

A company that rakes in billions a year in sales while going through CEOs like water and hitting bankruptcies twice in six years is CLEARLY a failure because of unions going on strike. It's never the management's fault.

wrenchwench Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:15:39pm

re: #59 aagcobb

What would a rational conservative GOP look like?
It would support policies which promotes marriage rather than focusing on preventing same-sex marriage.
It would promote effective family planning and contraceptives which could greatly reduce the abortion rate.
It would support the Dream Act as supporting the assimilation of immigrants, the central story of the American Dream.
It would support a balanced approach to long term deficit reduction.
It would recognize the importance of federal investment in infrastructure and education, like when we enacted the GI Bill and built the interstate highway system.
It would support promoting democratic reform abroad while avoiding reckless military adventures.

That would be a GOP I could support.

Got a time machine? That's the only way to see that GOP.

Eventual Carrion Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:16:07pm

re: #62 Bulworth

Obama spoke at the DNC that year, so Obama. //

Ahhhh, I see. I don't know why I can never get the concept of:
2 + 2 = fish

jaunte Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:17:11pm

re: #57 Lidane

It's a replay of their derp and fail from the Clinton years, but on steroids.

Sekrit night flights into MenaBenghazi!

JAFO Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:18:54pm

re: #59 aagcobb

What would a rational conservative GOP look like?
It would support policies which promotes marriage rather than focusing on preventing same-sex marriage.
It would promote effective family planning and contraceptives which could greatly reduce the abortion rate.
It would support the Dream Act as supporting the assimilation of immigrants, the central story of the American Dream.
It would support a balanced approach to long term deficit reduction.
It would recognize the importance of federal investment in infrastructure and education, like when we enacted the GI Bill and built the interstate highway system.
It would support promoting democratic reform abroad while avoiding reckless military adventures.

That would be a GOP I could support.

That's the Democratic Party

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:19:43pm

re: #59 aagcobb

What would a rational conservative GOP look like?
It would support policies which promotes marriage rather than focusing on preventing same-sex marriage.
It would promote effective family planning and contraceptives which could greatly reduce the abortion rate.
It would support the Dream Act as supporting the assimilation of immigrants, the central story of the American Dream.
It would support a balanced approach to long term deficit reduction.
It would recognize the importance of federal investment in infrastructure and education, like when we enacted the GI Bill and built the interstate highway system.
It would support promoting democratic reform abroad while avoiding reckless military adventures.

That would be a GOP I could support.

That's the Democrats, full stop. Every item on that list is in the Democratic party platform.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:20:00pm

re: #59 aagcobb

What would a rational conservative GOP look like?
It would support policies which promotes marriage rather than focusing on preventing same-sex marriage.
It would promote effective family planning and contraceptives which could greatly reduce the abortion rate.
It would support the Dream Act as supporting the assimilation of immigrants, the central story of the American Dream.
It would support a balanced approach to long term deficit reduction.
It would recognize the importance of federal investment in infrastructure and education, like when we enacted the GI Bill and built the interstate highway system.
It would support promoting democratic reform abroad while avoiding reckless military adventures.

That would be a GOP I could support.

Fuck you, you didn't even mention Jesus or Gods will once you liberal socialist facist muslim atheist commie!

///

aagcobb Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:20:45pm

re: #68 Big Joe Ghazi

That's the Democratic Party

Yes, Obama is basically a moderate Republican.

BongCrodny Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:21:04pm

re: #6 Origuy

Wait a minute! Petraeus testified after all? But I thought Obama cooked up the whole scheme so that he wouldn't! You mean that the Intelligence Committee found their subpoena forms?

That wasn't Petraeus who testified; that was his clone, grown from a petri dish in Guantanamo.

Honestly, some people just can't put two and two together.

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:21:21pm

re: #65 wrenchwench

Got a time machine? That's the only way to see that GOP.

Time machine? You need a holodeck to see that GOP, since it's never existed in real life.

Skip Intro Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:24:43pm

That’s right; Peter King was forced to admit that the talking points used by Amb. Susan Rice were approved by the CIA:

Well, that's the smart New York Peter King. What does the dumber than a box of horse turds, Iowa Steve King think?

Lidane Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:25:02pm

re: #71 aagcobb

Yes, Obama is basically a moderate Republican.

Yep. He's an Eisenhower Republican in all but name.

dragonath Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:25:23pm

Lincoln Chafee was a moderate, but he isn't even a Republican anymore.

RadicalModerate Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:25:44pm

re: #54 Lidane

That's what I've been pointing out to people. The brands will survive. There's no way that a company like Bimbo would let the Hostess brands slip past them. Someone will pay for those brands, recipes, and trademarks.

I can definitely see Bimbo Brands bringing Hostess under their umbrella of bakeries. After all, their last attempt to counter-market against Twinkies (under their Mrs Bairds brand) didn't exactly go too well.

Yes, that really is the brand name they used.

Sionainn Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:26:38pm

re: #4 jaunte

[Embedded content]

Joe Heck doggedly performing the GOP goalpost wheelie

I'm so embarrassed that idiots in my state actually voted for this man.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:27:59pm

re: #41 jaunte

Fast n' Benghazi Furious

Fast and Furious II: Benghazi Boogaloo

OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE!!1 #127: Some BS we threw together because we can't stand Barack Obama.

S'latch Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:34:11pm

The right wing talkers are making a lot out of the report that "The CIA told the White House that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a terror attack by an al-Qaeda linked group, but the assessment was altered by Obama administration officials, Gen. David Petraeus told the House Intelligence Committee." USA Today.

CuriousLurker Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:39:25pm

Just a drive-by comment. Additionally, regarding Ambassador Rice (emphasis mine):

[...] Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) defended U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s initial report that the attack in Benghazi was the result of spontaneous violence because that was the unclassified version of the intelligence community’s understanding of events.

“The confusion arises between the difference between what is classified and unclassified… What is classified cannot be discussed publicly because it would reveal, potentially, the sources and methods used to gather intelligence,” Conrad said after a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing with Petraeus following the House one.

“The notes that Ambassador Rice were speaking from were in an unclassified setting… She did entirely the responsible thing by answering questions based on what was unclassified and agreed to by the entire the entire intelligence committee as reflecting their unclassified views at the moment she used those talking points,” Conrad added. [...]

More at Politico...

dragonath Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:41:16pm

Boy, those attacks are really sticking:

[Link: polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

Patricia Kayden Fri, Nov 16, 2012 1:30:29pm

re: #7 jaunte

John McCain is a sad old man.

And a man who is bitter after losing to President Obama in 2008. Don't know why he was surprised that no one wanted him and Crazy Palin in the White House.
Glad to hear that this whole Benghazi "controversy" is nothing but a tempest in a teapot. Exactly what I thought. Although, we can do better in the future to protect our ambassadors, which I am sure President Obama will do.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, President Obama is a nerd who doesn't mess things up. Nothing to see, folks. Move on.

Joanne Fri, Nov 16, 2012 6:50:03pm

re: #59 aagcobb

What would a rational conservative GOP look like?
It would support policies which promotes marriage rather than focusing on preventing same-sex marriage.
It would promote effective family planning and contraceptives which could greatly reduce the abortion rate.
It would support the Dream Act as supporting the assimilation of immigrants, the central story of the American Dream.
It would support a balanced approach to long term deficit reduction.
It would recognize the importance of federal investment in infrastructure and education, like when we enacted the GI Bill and built the interstate highway system.
It would support promoting democratic reform abroad while avoiding reckless military adventures.

That would be a GOP I could support.

Sounds like the Democrats to me.

danhenry1 Fri, Nov 16, 2012 8:43:33pm

re: #49 aagcobb

I believe that it is pretty well known that Twinkies have a 100 year shelf life.

labman57 Fri, Nov 16, 2012 9:07:46pm

Republican leaders are so desperate to find something -- anything -- upon which to hang their "Obama should not have been reelected" hat that they are culling the tabloids and right wing conspiracy blog sites in search of kernels of scandal to serve as the basis for their faux outrage.

Hence their headlong stumble into irrational accusations and indignant chest-thumping, sans sound evidence, against Ambassador Rice. And as we have seen numerous times, when reality conflicts with their hyperbolic rhetoric, they will almost always ignore reality.

tshinkle Fri, Nov 16, 2012 9:23:26pm

Speaking as a parent of a soldier recently selected for Special Forces, it is extremely troubling that politicians appear to have needlessly let down those serving our country in extremely dangerous circumstances. And four of those that were not helped paid the ultimate price.

Peter King simply confirmed that the CIA wanted to immediately tell the truth about what happened, and then caved to political pressure from somewhere in the Executive Branch.

The question is, who applied the political pressure and why did they want to lie to the American public?

And the scary question for me, is what does that mean to those who serve America in the most dangerous parts of the world in the future?

Obdicut Sat, Nov 17, 2012 2:13:09am

re: #87 tshinkle

Peter King simply confirmed that the CIA wanted to immediately tell the truth about what happened, and then caved to political pressure from somewhere in the Executive Branch.

No, he didn't confirm that, because it's not true. Can you provide any support for your conspiracy theory at all?

tshinkle Sat, Nov 17, 2012 10:03:39am

re: #88 Obdicut

No, he didn't confirm that, because it's not true. Can you provide any support for your conspiracy theory at all?

It’s right in the box above: The CIA said Al Qaeda was part of the coordinated attack at the Benghazi Consulate (they immediately wanted to tell the truth). After it goes through the process (political pressure from the Executive Branch) the CIA agreed (pressured) to say “ok”. When dealing with government-speak it really doesn’t get much clearer.

And I stand by my original concern: as a parent of a soldier that has served in Afghanistan and been selected for Special Forces, do I have the right to know why no help came, why the administration lied about Al Qaeda’s involvement, and is this the new normal when dealing with American’s who serve their country in dangerous places.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Petraeus Testifies the CIA Approved Susan Rice’s Talking Points

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud