Who wrote the ‘talking points’ for General Petraeus?

November 16, 2012

Writer

General Petraeus testified behind closed doors today, but reports are coming out that Petraues says he believed it was a terrorist attack from early on and that he was going off of ‘talking points’ when he mentioned the video. So, who wrote the ‘talking points’ for him to read? Glenn reacted to the news on radio this morning.

"The good general, General Petraeus, is up on the Hill now. He is up testifying before closed doors in congress. He says that he knew that it was a terrorist strike within 24 hours. Now, this is a big deal because this is, remember, the president said a week later that Ambassador Rice only said those things because that's what the intel from the CIA said. He also ‑‑ and apparently this is a very big deal. He also said that when he appeared in front of congress on the 14th after he knew it was a terrorist strike, he appeared in front of congress and he said that it was ‑‑ had something to do with this video. He said he was using talking points," Glenn said.

"The talking points, that's a political reference. The CIA doesn't use talking points. They use briefings. So a source close to the general revealed late last night, early this morning that he was going to talk about these talking points. We're not sure if he's going to say who gave the talking points. It appears that they were based on a briefing and then it went through several hands of several different agencies. He is going to say he doesn't know who gave the final draft of these talking points."

"Here's my speculation, and it's pure speculation. Anything could happen today. But I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of a general who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. But more importantly, he took an oath to his brothers in arms. He took an oath of loyalty that he would be there for them, and I think this man saw himself slide. I think when he was ‑‑ remember when he was testifying on the 14th, he had just been notified that he was under investigation by the FBI. Now, if that doesn't ‑‑ if that doesn't give one moment to pause, at the height of a campaign. Let's put the ‑‑ let's put the ‑‑ let's put the events in order here. Benghazi happens. The word is, is that General Ham, a friend of Petraeus, is readying the troops to go, getting them out, getting them launched. Somebody gives them the order to stand down. That's not something that comes from Petraeus. Petraeus is an old soldier and a friend of Ham's."

"Now, they would all be talking amongst themselves. Ham is apparently the guy who said, "We're not standing down; continue to ready the troops. We've got to launch the troops." That's when Petraeus apparently said, "General Ham, stand down." Now, the only one that can give the order really to stand down is not the Secretary of Defense but that's the president of the United States. The only one that can issue the order to launch, the only one that can issue the order to stand down would be the president of the United States. Secretary of Defense was with the president of the United States. My speculation is that Petraeus was on Ham's side, but Petraeus, whatever was going on in Benghazi, knew what was going on in Benghazi. He was already deeply involved and, quite honestly, I think the man's ‑‑ I think the man's soul had already started to wither away. He had been making really bad, wrong decisions. But there's nothing more sobering than body bags. Stand down."

"So he stands down, and he says nothing. And SEALs die, and he has to live with it. Now, did he do everything he could to save them? As the CIA director, yes. There's nothing he could do. The guys who were the SEALs that died, they were CIA. They weren't military. And they went, but Petraeus had no authority to send in more drones, armed drones. He couldn't do anything. He couldn't launch an aircraft. He couldn't send another SEAL team. He couldn't send in Delta Force. His hands were tied."

"But I've got to believe that a man like Petraeus wondered to himself, 'What the hell am I doing,' and then the phone call came: 'By the way, General, you're under investigation with the FBI."'Well, I know what? 'Oh, by the way, you have to testify in front of congress. By the way, we have some talking points based on some intel that we've collected from several different agencies.' I believe he took the talking points. I believe he just went with them and said, 'I am in so much trouble right now.' And the minute he gave that testimony, I think he regretted it. Because once he gave that testimony, if I'm ‑‑ if I'm a movie writer and I'm trying to write a movie that you will believe, that's when somebody else comes into his life and says, "Good. Now General, we need you to continue to say this." And he's driving home or he's at home and something happens and he's like, "What the hell have I even turned into? I am going to ‑‑ I'm going to clean up my life. They're not going to hold this over me. I've become everything that I swore I never would. When I was a young cadet, I believed in something." This is the movie that I hope is being made right now. "I believed in something. I'm not going to play this game anymore. I will tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may," but the devil on his shoulder says, 'But General, if you do that, you will go in front of congress and you will have to ‑‑ you'll have to tell them that you lied.'"

"Now, if he's truly redeemed, he will do that today. It seems to be that he is dancing around that, but a man with real honor will redeem himself and say, 'Yes, I understand that I can go to prison for lying to congress, but I was afraid. I was afraid to bring this out in front of my ‑‑ for my family, my wife. I had made mistakes. I was under investigation. I had pressure on me. I made a mistake. I lied. But I want to correct it now. And if it means that I go to jail, then it means I go to jail. I'm prepared for that consequence.' That's a real hero. Don't know if he'll do that. But I'm hoping that he has had a moment of redemption because we all have our own bottoms: Did this guy bottom out with this sex scandal. Has that wrecked his life enough? Has he felt enough pain to where he says, 'I just, I want to surrender. I'll just do whatever I have to do to set things right.' We will see. Testimony today. Testimony right now with General Petraeus."

Following Petraeus's testimony, Rep. Peter King gave FOX News some of the information that was shared at the testimony. TheBlaze reports:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that he believed all along that terrorists were involved in attacking the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya — at odds with his initial testimony two months ago when he labeled the Sept. 11 assault a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video.
“General Petraeus’ testimony today was that from the start he told us that this was a terrorist attack, that terrorists were involved from the start,” King told reporters after the closed-door hearing before the House intelligence committee. “I told him in my question I had a very different recollection of that.”
King added, “The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack…he has I think a different impression of the impressions he left on Sept. 14.”

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep