Caso Petraeus, ¿qué motivó la renuncia del ex director de la CIA?

[ricfeliu Acero]

[seneca4bc]

BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi... and LIED

By Jennifer Rubin

Washington Post 11/16/2012

In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian hat Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

[seneca4bc]

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

The irony of this is that Rice may well have been used as a patsy, unaware that she was sent out to spin a misleading tale. My colleague Dana Milbank recounts Rice’s long-standing inability to get along with others and to be circumspect in her pronouncements:

It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. . . . Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

Frankly the same could be said of many national security positions at this point. The American people made their choice in November on the president, but it now appears they were duped regarding the real facts concerning Benghazi. What are we going to do about that?

[ricfeliu Acero]

Cracks Appear in House GOP's Anti-tax Wall

A growing number of Republicans in the House of Representatives — including a handful of tea party-backed conservatives — are signaling greater flexibility than their leaders to reach a fiscal cliff deal with President Barack Obama.

They are not buckling on demands to slash spending or agreeing with Obama's exact proposals to avert across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts set to start on Jan. 1. But unlike House Speaker John Boehner, they suggest they would be open to higher tax rates on wealthy Americans as part of a broader deal to slash deficits.

[msvagita]

SeriousLy HawHaW???  De Nik le dicen Kalentura!  Lo mismo k dicen motivo a Eva Longoria Matarse X K Obummer saliera de Presidente!  Pero NO DOubt K Michele es mucho mas fiera k la esposa de Petraeus! Meowrrrrr!!

[msvagita]

PerOoOooo...La verdadera razon es lo mismo komo el fiasco de Fast & Furious, A H-E-L-L-A-C-I-O-U-S Cover Up sobre las muertes de Nuestra Embassy!