Also, some more tid-bits, the administration acknowledged the attack was indeed terrorist in nature on Sept 28th. 5 days before the first debate.
Petraeus was not asked to testify under oath, King said.
That matches what Petraeus told Kyra Phillips of HLN, CNN's sister network. He said his resignation was solely a result of his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. He added that he never passed classified information to her.
Prior to Friday's hearings, it was thought that Petraeus would tell lawmakers that the CIA knew soon after the attack that Ansar al Sharia was responsible for it, according to an official with knowledge of the case. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
regardless of this little non story why are they having classified meetings about it instead of just addressing the public with the info?
Why are they hiding behind closed doors with their info?
sounds like a lot of scheming to me
Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by jjkenobi
A predictable and boring argument that holds no substance. Schedules for these people are always tentative. Let's try that again shall we?
Under pressure from senators, the State Department is allowing some lawmakers to look at cables and other documents related to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, but only today and tomorrow, when most senators are not in Washington.
"Funny since no member is in town," the aide said. "The timing and limited access clearly demonstrates the administration cares more about playing politics with the tragedy than accepting responsibility."
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The WH KNEW what was happening and likely saw it going down live from the drone and likely someone quite possibley the POTUS called a STAND DOWN and let people get killed to cover his sorry azz, and then likely blackmailed Petraeus with the affair, which in itself may have been a setup a la Bohemian Grove Eyes Wide Shut Syndrome, and Petraeus decided to declare himself unfit due to the affair and so there was an attempt to avoid testimony, because he would either have to lie under oath to protect the Prez and/.or himself or others who have been forced to do treasonous acts under a treasonous Prez, or Petraeus was always involved in such things, or the real dirt would come out, he is likely CFR but I have not looked that one up.
Originally posted by rickymouse
S&F for bringing this up. Seems like the Republicans just want something to bitch about. If they were truly interested in finding things out they would be there. If they have the facts from being their they can't spread rumors, seems like in congress you can't say something that you KNOW is false but if you don't know you can keep blabbing.
Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley tells The Cable: "Sen. Paul didn't need to attend yet another Administration press conference disguised as a classified briefing to know there should have been Marines defending our personnel in Libya, to hear the Administration make the same excuses in private they will make in public. Sen. Paul is focused on demanding answers, demanding those who made these fatal mistake be fired, and fixing the mess this Administration has made. All of that needs to be done in public, for Americans to see and hear."
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Lately the Democrats have been scheduling all the Benghazi items for a time when they are aware the Republicans will not be present (ie they already have scheduled items).
Update #3: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines writes in to contest the GOP aides' assertion that access to the documents was limited. "At the committee's request, the Department has made documents available to the committee professional staff and Members. Committee staff are here during recess, and we provided documents to them," he said. "In fact, Senators, and Committee staff, can review the materials whenever they want, and we have offered to bring the materials up to the committee as many times as Members and staff want, and when they want to review them. We've made this clear to the committee."
It only sounds insane to someone who is a die-hard Obama supporter and apologist.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Ghost375
It only sounds insane to someone who is a die-hard Obama supporter and apologist. Because you can't accept Obama's Chicago style politics.