All dots lead to Obama
When David Petraeus says the CIA’s talking points on Benghazi were edited to take out references to the event being a terror attack, there’s only one place that such editing could occur: from somewhere above the CIA and from somewhere within the Obama Administration machinery.
In other words, although our sadly incurious media has no desire to connect the dots—or to follow them in any way—the dots all lead to Obama.
Obama personally? Perhaps, although it seems likely that a politico from his re-election effort would be more likely. After all, who has the most to lose? (Oh, that would be Obama, but anyway…)
Is it possible that Petraeus, having to perform as CIA Director with his not-yet-public sex scandal hanging over his head (and his entire political future very much in doubt) was compromised at his initial Benghazi brief to Congress? All dots lead to ‘yes.’ And is it possible that now the damage has been done, Petraeus is free to tell the truth?
Connect your own dots: your results will not vary.
Pre-Petraeus scandal, it appeared Leon Panetta would be tagged as the Administration’s Benghazi scapegoat for the death of the four Americans who were left to twist in the wind during the Benghazi attack. Now it’s clear the Administration thinks the narrative on the event has changed from the Administration’s disgraceful and inept performance to the personal foibles of Petraeus. In such a case, no Administration scapegoat is required (other than the one they already have).
Tell me again how many people were killed as a part of the Watergate scandal?
Benghazi: Obama denied, Americans died.