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.”

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep