First, CIA Director David Petraeus resigned two days after Obama’s re-election over an “extramarital affair” with his biographer. Conveniently for Obama, Petraeus had been scheduled to testify in front of Congress next week about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya– and now that Petraeus has resigned, he won’t be testifying. Now, it turns out that Petraeus had personally investigated the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, and we won’t hear vital information that could have blown the lid off of the Obama Administration’s obvious cover-up of this national security failure. It’s also been revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to resign, so it’s doubtful we’ll hear anything about Benghazi from her either. All we have to go on are the words of the father of Petraeus’s “mistress,” who implied the bombshell story is just a smoke screen for something bigger.
Update: The scandal gets worse for Obama– because Petraeus actually gave honest testimony to Congress on November 16th. He admitted that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks” despite his prior Congressional testimony that the attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya began as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim youtube clip. Petraeus has now testified that the CIA’s talking points to the media and the American people were edited to downplay the terrorist connection. While intelligence officials say they don’t know who changed the CIA’s talking points, what’s clear is that Obama benefited from Petraeus’ false testimony in September 2012. During the 2012 presidential election, Obama continuously asserted that Al Qaeda was ‘on the run’ while his supporters chanted “bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.’ Because of Petraeus’ false testimony, Obama could claim that his reaction to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was justified based on the intelligence available at the time. Furthermore, Obama was able to deny the occurrence of another Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil for 2 weeks before Election Day. A mere two days after Obama got re-elected, Petraeus’ extra-marital affair was exposed and Petraeus was thrown under the bus by the Obama Administration.
Yet, White House press secretary Jay Carney says “… this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”
And, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice wants us to believe, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo… In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.”
And, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds to the terrorist attack with, “Let me state very clearly — and I hope it is obvious — that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”
And, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo apparently believes that the exercise of the 1st Amendment right to free speech– IF it offends Muslims– constitutes an “abuse” of “the universal right of free speech.” Wow, that’s one step away from justifying the criminalization of speech that Muslims claim is offensive! What is this, “1984”?
It is CLEAR that the Obama Administration is guilty of a cover-up.
And about a month after the attack, it’s been revealed that “the U.S. intelligence community in Libya informed the administration in Washington, D.C., within 24 hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that the attack had been a terrorist strike whose perpetrators included militia associated with al Qaeda.”