The White House Strategy – blame Petreus


Finally, we know why the gang of journolisters were invited to the White House recently. The meeting must have been to provide the talking points that are going to give the White House a get out of jail card free, but in fact will cause the White House Administration to dig deeper into the mire. Why else would writers at the Washington Post write such rubbish as the attempt to blame Petreus for what is of their own making? Perhaps we should see this as a preemptive strike, because that is the way that I am seeing this at the present time (in other words, I will change my opinion when more information becomes available).

The issue is not who told the troops to stand down, but once again the issue here is the talking points used by the idiotic and useless Susan Rice who went on television with false talking points. Susan Rice contradicted the Libyan President Mogahreif who subsequently lost face in Libya as well as perceptively elsewhere (on the other hand, I always believed the Libyan President because he is not a fool). The contradiction was a very big deal but the White House Administration has failed to understand why this is such an issue.

First of all, it must be pointed out that when David Petreus first testified before Congress (I am not sure if he was under oath) he went with the White House line about the video. After that testimony or around the same time he resigned as head of the CIA. This is the point that we learned that David Petreus and Paula Broadwell had an affair. That information was probably being kept for a rainy day and my opinion is that when David Petreus refused to continue to play ball, Obama told him that he would be outed over the affair, leading to the resignation and David Petreus being the one who gave the information. (I think that this is very much a smoking gun).

However, let’s get back to what happened in Benghazi and what the CIA knew. From the beginning the CIA chain of command knew that this was an attack by AQ and affiilate Ansar al-Sharia. (my view is that AQ people were responsible for the plot and they dragged in members of Ansar al Sharia who are always wanting to find ways of enslaving people). The CIA had informed Mogahrief that it was an Al-Qaeda attack, just as they informed Washington.

I have my own theories about time lines etc. and I have a suspicion that Obama lied about stating that he told them to do everything possible. At some point there was a discussion with his security staff including Tom Donilan. He also had a conversation with Nethanyu on the phone as the attack was raging. I find this weird that he even went ahead with that phone call (but that is just my opinion). Then it seems there was a period of time that Obama was missing altogether. It seems to me that he showed no interest in the attack or in doing anything to help those who were under attack.

We do know for certain that there had been a protest in Egypt perhaps relating to a 3rd rate documentary, but perhaps the people demonstrating had another motive. If it was the other motive, then that could have been a set up that was supposed to lead to the release of the Blind Sheik, except that the US consulate in Benghazi came under attack. The 3rd rate documentary became the scapegoat for the attack, but there has never been any firm evidence that this documentary did in fact influence what took place. I will add here that it certainly was the cause for the attack upon the US embassy in Tunisia.

Someone other than Victoria Nuland was not happy with the CIA talking points, but it was Victoria Nuland who wanted them changed. The memo signed off by David Petreus had differed significantly from the meme coming from Susan Rice and the White House. Who above Victoria Nuland had been making a fuss about those talking points? Well I point the finger at Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy. Who is above Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama.

I get the impression that the closed doors testimony by David Petreus (the later testimony) was a lot more detailed and that he gave information that pointed the finger at the White House. Otherwise the attack on David Petreus that is coming from writers at the Washington Post would not be happening.

No matter how I look at this issue, I keep coming back to White House Administration staff, and even the Oval Office. No one other than the President could have ordered the stand down of those who were wanting to rescue the emabassy staff. There are many unanswered questions and all that is happening so far is the run around.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.