General Petraeus testifies in front of the Congress on Benghazi and admits he knew this was a terrorist attack from the beginning

  Earlier today General Petraeus testified under oath about the terrorist attack in Benghazi which left Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith dead, and according to Peter King  the general stated that he knew this was a terrorist attack unrelated to a You Tube video almost immediately.

  Peter King then stated that this was not the impression General Petraeus’ testimony–while not under oath–from September 14th left with the Congressional leaders. During that testimony General Petraeus appeared to be backing Barack Obama’s claim that this was an attack which grew out of a protest of the previously mentioned You Tube video.

  This leads us to the obvious question: Why did the general change his testimony? And the answer is equally as obvious to me. He changed his testimony because he was not telling the truth on September 14th. He was not telling the truth because he was compromised and he was still hoping to hold onto his job and his reputation.

    General Petraeus’ affair was uncovered in June and because of the business he was in this represented a national security issue, it is not plausible that Barack Obama was unaware of a high level person who was compromised so it doesn’t take a great leap forward to jump to the conclusion that Barack Obama, or someone in his regime, decided to use General Petraeus’ situation to help him cover up this story and help his reelection bid. Barack Obama was holding this affair over his head during the September 14th hearing. (And it just so happens that the woman who helped to bring down Petraeus happened to dine at the White House three times in recent months, coincidence?)

  Before I continue let me state that this represents precisely why David Petraeus had to resign over this affair. He was compromised and because of this he was in a position where blackmail (can I still use that term, or is it now racist) or extortion could be used against him, and it most likely was in this case. If our own government was willing to use this to advance a lie to the American people just think what others could use this information for if it fell into the wrong hands.

  With that being said let us move on to the next revelation from David Petraeus’ testimony this morning. General Petraeus made the claim today that the official talking points released by the CIA were altered prior to Susan Rice’s multiple appearances on the talking head Sunday morning television shows on September 16th.

  General Petraeus is making the claim that at this point there was still confusion as to what triggered the attacks even though he now says he knew almost immediately this was a terrorist attack and the CIA talking points were altered. He is still trying to cover his own ass for being in a compromised position while trying to shift the blame to other agencies for the falsehoods advanced by Susan Rice, but that still leads us to ask the question of who changed the talking points to a position more beneficial to Barack Obama when clearly the president must have known this was a terrorist attack at this point?

  That is a question that we still don’t have an answer to but we do know that Barack Obama admitted that he was the one who sent Susan Rice out to the talk shows and he did admit that she was using the best intelligence which was made available to her at that time.

  An interesting choice of words to say the least; Barack Obama didn’t say Susan Rice had the latest or most recent information available to the regime, but rather she had the best information MADE AVAILABLE TO HER. There is a huge difference here. The cover up was still ongoing at this point and it appears as if somebody high up in the Obama regime made the decision to provide Susan Rice with intelligence which would downplay the terrorist aspect of this attack in the hope of running out the clock until after the election and you have to give the Obama regime credit for this because it worked.

 If David Patraeus is telling the truth and the CIA talking points were watered down the question still remains, who decided to downplay the terrorist aspect to this story before the election and who decided to promote the idea this was a protest over the You Tube video when everyone in the regime knew this wasn’t true when they sent Susan Rice out there to promote a lie?

  The plot thickens, the cover up continues and we have reelected this corrupt, inept, and criminal regime for another four years. Elections have consequences and this is what the American people deserve…..