General David Petraeus, former CIA Director, testified in private (secret) hearings today about the Benghazi killings.
He said that all references to al Qaeda involvement were “stripped” from the CIA’s “original talking points.” This is first an admission that prepared talking points were manufactured in order to present a like story by everyone. That in and of itself is troubling to me, but apparently common practice for the criminals in Washington D.C.
The next statement was that other “intelligence” officials could not identify who changed those same talking points. It seems obvious to me that an attempt to hide the truth has just been accomplished. First, Petraeus says he knew immediately what had happened, but that his talking points had been changed buy an unknown entity. Not likely. Then, he goes on to say that no one knows who the culprit is that changed the original lies. Why is this tactic being used?
Initially after the attack, Petraeus and the White House both claimed that this began strictly due to a so-called anti-Muslim movie, and then became a protest out of control. All knew that was a lie, and Petraeus said as much today in testimony. But is he purposely protecting himself and the White House with these statements?
If Petraeus knew that the attack was affected by “terrorists” from the beginning, and took it upon himself to lie about the killings, he could be charged with perjury. However, if his so-called talking points had been changed without his knowledge, and he never knew the truth, then he could claim ignorance, thereby avoiding being charged with perjury. But he said he knew from the beginning that it was an “al Qaeda” attack.
Secondly, by claiming that no one knew who changed those talking points, that helps to clear the White House, and other government agencies, at least temporarily, because supposedly no one knows who made the alleged changes. This is getting interesting.
My guess is that this charade is meant to complicate the vetting process, and to cloud the real truth. This testimony also helps to protect the criminal behavior of all involved, and at the highest levels. Is this simply an attempt by Petraeus and the White House to clear themselves from scrutiny and possible prosecution through the use of deception?
We will have to wait and see, but expecting the truth from this gang is a fool’s game. The most likely outcome will be a massive cover up, and that is already firmly underway!