Who wrote the ‘talking points’ for General Petraeus?

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.”

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.