Petraeus / Clinton and the Benghazi Hearings this week.

cynik

It has been confirmed Hillary Clinton won't testify about the attack in Libya nor will David Petraeus due to his affair with Paula Broadwell.

So what's the theory about this? I'm very cynical about it all and think there's something being covered up.

We were told the outrage against America was because of this anti-lslamic video that appeared on youtube but...this just reminds me of 'Burn a Koran' day which was also intended to flare up tension between America and the Arab world.

Isn't it strange 2 of the most important and knowledgeable sources of information won't testify????

Jonny7

cynik wrote: »

It has been confirmed Hillary Clinton won't testify about the attack in Libya nor will David Petraeus due to his affair with Paula Broadwell.

So what's the theory about this? I'm very cynical about it all and think there's something being covered up.

We were told the outrage against America was because of this anti-lslamic video that appeared on youtube but...this just reminds me of 'Burn a Koran' day which was also intended to flare up tension between America and the Arab world.

Isn't it strange 2 of the most important and knowledgeable sources of information won't testify????

It was reported as such at first, but became clear after that it was a very well planned attack.

The consulate also seemed to be CIA linked, hardly surprising really. Romney tried to use it for point-scoring, but it was weak.

In before the "mainstream media jumped the gun they must be controlled nyeer" statements

cynik

Jonny7 wrote: »

It was reported as such at first, but became clear after that it was a very well planned attack.

The consulate also seemed to be CIA linked, hardly surprising really. Romney tried to use it for point-scoring, but it was weak.

In before the "mainstream media jumped the gun they must be controlled nyeer" statements

Interesting point highlighted there...so what you're saying is the attack was on CIA rather than diplomats? In your view, what was the motive?

Jonny7

cynik wrote: »

Interesting point highlighted there...so what you're saying is the attack was on CIA rather than diplomats? In your view, what was the motive?

There was a CIA annex, for rapid response about a mile or two away (about 10 guys) This was also attacked later. Two guys killed were acknowledged as CIA and not state.

stuar

I think it would have leaked info that the CIA were always there and actually started the whole "Uprising" with paid foreign fighters.

humanji

Just a quick update with Petraeus' testimony at the hearing today: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/petraeus-testifies-on-libya-attack-days-after-resignation-574494.html

There's not a whole lot there, and I'm sure a more detailed report will be available a little later today.