Charles Krauthammer questions the testimony of James Clapper and David Petraeus:
That doesn’t make what he said true or plausible. Clearly when the Tripoli station chief says it’s a terror attack that contradicts what Clapper said. I don’t understand why what Clapper said afterwards is gospel and yet what we know is actually happening at the time on September 11, 12, 13, and 14 is ignored. We know there was a lot of information that it was a terror attack and we know that Susan Rice unequivocally said, it wasn’t as if she equivocated and said, “well it could be this, it could be that, the evidence is conflicting.” It got even stronger and less embellished with each one of the shows she went on. She said, “there’s no evidence otherwise.” Which obviously was not true. That’s the question, and tomorrow will be the real event when Petraeus will testify. And he’s the one that’s got to explain how he could’ve shaded what he said at the time so strongly to one side, when we know that it was not so, and when we would suspect somebody of his intelligence and all of the information he had, he might have known it wasn’t so. Was he being a team-player? And if he was, was he doing it entirely in the name of the team or did he have a sense that he had to play with the team because of that other scandal that’s out there that was hovering over him at the time. After all, the team had all the information about his situation and he was still hoping that he would stay in his job and end up not being exposed.