Also, some more tid-bits, the administration acknowledged the attack was indeed terrorist in nature on Sept 28th. 5 days before the first debate.
Not really. POTUS used Slick Willy's approach(did not have sex with that woman... ie certain acts he did not seem to think were sex but the thing is what is the meaning of "is"?) and worded his statement so he acknowledged what the WH would do in the case of terrorist acts but didn't quite go so far as to declare the incident as a terrorist act, and Susan Rice blamed it on the video and of course we know there is proof of that. 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.
Oh wait, here's an interesting tidbit
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.
This smells like a coverup of epic proportions and Petraeus is involved and telling only what he can get away with. Is he protecting the Prez, and why?
edit on 17-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: fix typo and add commentary and links