A member of the House Intelligence Committee who was in this morning’s closed-door testimony of former CIA Director David Petraeus said that CIA’s original talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attack were different from what was released by the White House.
Petraeus agreed to meet this morning with the House and Senate Intelligence panels after committee concerns that the disgraced general was taking valuable info on the attack with him as he resigned a week ago.
“The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) told reporters outside the hearing. “As far as General Petraeus, his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that this was a terrorist attack, terrorists involved from the start.”
King called the meeting “very cordial.”
“I think he has a different impression of the impressions he left on September 14th,” he said of Petraeus’ original briefing with lawmakers in which the attack was linked to protests over an anti-Muhammad video.
Petraeus did not give testimony under oath, and reportedly told lawmakers that his affair with his biographer did not affect his testimony.
King said members got the details sought about Petraeus’ fact-finding trip to Libya days before the election, though the details are classified.
“Other than the fact that they now clearly believe there was — did not arise out of a demonstration. It was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement,” the congressman said.
He said the challenge now is going through the chain of custody — between seven and nine agencies, King estimated — to see exactly where the story changed.
“This is ongoing. I mean this is — it still can be — obviously, you know, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and also people at the White House, to see if anyone at the White House changed their talking points.”
“He was saying there are many strings of intelligence but he also stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. And that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14th,” King stressed.
King also said Petraeus confirmed that he was “definitely fully aware of what was going on” the night of the attack.
So, we are back to square 1 concerning Bengahzi. The question remains: Who was involved in the bloody events of 9/11/2012? Was the President present in the Situation Room as the butchering of the Ambassador and other Americans unfolded? According to a press release on the day of 9/11, President Obama had a scheduled closed door meeting with General Dempsey, VP Biden, and Def Sec Panetta at 6PM. Did this meeting take place? And if so, did the crisis in Bengahzi interrupt the meeting and force all present to make the final decision concerning the ambassador and a potential rescue? Was the President “present” when communications with the ambassador went offline?
I have little faith that any of these questions will ever be answered. The disturbing thing is that bureaucratic inertia has set in.
“He said the challenge now is going through the chain of custody — between seven and nine agencies, King estimated — to see exactly where the story changed.”
But already, Democrat Senators now claim that the “process” changed the facts. That is, it sounds like there is little political will to form a select committee to get to the bottom of things. There will be plenty of white noise coming out of Capitol Hill. But, soon the “fiscal cliff” drama will take front and center, and the MSM will not in any way keep up the pressure. By New Years, all will be forgotten.
Geesh! Who doesn’t know that press releases in such instances are drafted by department of state and or the oval office from a wider source of information. They lied to the people for political and campaign motives and most everybody understands that — but what now? A drawn out circus diversion away from trying to fix the economy, jobs, budget and national debt?
If absolutely determined they lied then simply walk away with the big new club handed you to leverage negotiations on the more important matters at hand. Then on the floor and in committies of congress use every opportune time to remind the people that the President and his cabinet can’t be trusted to be honest to the american people. What a door that opens going forward!
” A drawn out circus diversion away from trying to fix the economy, jobs, budget and national debt”
Sorry to say, but none of those things are going to be dealt with in the next 4 years. At best the Republicans hold the line and block the Obama administration and things stay more or less as they are, at worst the Dems get their way and things get a whole lot worse. Even with a successful Republican block from the house the full onset of Obamacare, as well as a host of other regulations and executive orders will contribute towards making things worse. By voting for the status quo the American people basically said they don’t want to deal with any of the issues you mentioned.
Except the American people most likely didn’t vote for the status quo. Don’t forget, there’s at least 22 counts of either suspected or outright confirmed voter fraud in the 2012 election. And besides, if it was the will of the people that Obama won re-election, why is it that every single Voter ID state, which do have minimal chances of ending up rigged, voted AGAINST Obama?
Compare this with the way the news media would be reacting had this happened back when Bush was President.
“But, but, but… The News Media is Corporations so they are all Right Wing tools!!!!”
Har.
So precisely when and how did the Romney Campaign change those talking points that eventually wound up with Ambassador Susan Rice? This sounds like a conspiracy of Speilberg Proportions!
Forward!
“King said members got the details sought about Petraeus’ fact-finding trip to Libya days before the election, though the details are classified.
“Other than the fact that they now clearly believe there was — did not arise out of a demonstration. It was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement,” the congressman said.”
Brilliant reporting, Bridget.
Congress needs to get its act together and make public Petraeus’ trip report. Also, they need to follow McCain’s lead and create a select committee to take testimony from all the major players.
“As far as General Petraeus, his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that this was a terrorist attack, terrorists involved from the start.”
That’s what Obama and Candygirl said at the debate, that they’d always said it was a terrorist attack. Just go check the records at the Ministry of Truth.
When asked Wednesday [October 17] by CBS San Francisco station KPIX-TV whether the Obama administration’s initial response it later abandoned was the result of an intelligence flaw, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., indicated that talking points distributed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper may be to blame.
“I think what happened was the director of national intelligence, which we call the DNI, who is a very good individual, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Jim Clapper, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” Feinstein told KPIX-TV. “I think that was possibly a mistake.” …
On Sept. 12, Mr. Obama made reference to general “acts of terror” in his first public remarks on the assault. On the following Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and other political talk shows that an anti-American protest was behind the assault.
Feinstein told KPIX-TV that the talking points were distributed by Clapper’s office between the two dates.
Well, it looks like the CIA is pushing back on Benghazi, placing the blame either on the White House or the State Department. It will be interesting to see what their response to Petraeus is. But I didn’t hear anything about what happened while the attack was taking place. Did the CIA people in Benghazi call for help and, if they did, who turned them down? Who made the decision NOT to reinforce the people in Benghazi immediately with whatever forces we had in the area? This whole scandal only raises more questions. But, I hate to say this, I don’t think Congress will ever get to the bottom of it. Not with the Democrats (who control the Senate) AND the mainstream media carrying water for Obama.
I remember the news reporting on the Sept. 14 briefing by Petraeus was that he claimed the video was at fault. Now he claims to have said it was terrorists. Does anyone press the General hard about this discrepancy?
Why do all of these agencies release “talking points”? Talking points are what campaigns do to sway opinion. Are not government departments able to release honest statement of fact?
If Rice had the backbone she should have she would speak out about being given false information and resign from her job. This must all go back to Obama. If not, the government is run so poorly that it is dysfunctional and Obama should go. Part of the responsibility of the president is hearing all this stuff. That’s what the wee hours phone call that was in a Hillary ad was all about.
You should have added: “And a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans in name only and John Boehner.”
The latest I heard was that they were airbrushed to “protect sources.” It has struck me all along that such an alibi could be rolled out, and might even have enough truth to it to fudge things. The right has gotten crazed with the scent of a Watergate, and indeed the Rice interviews were very odd, but my sense is that too much of PJM has lost all sense of proportion on this one. But then, if we can’t dream about ultimate “gotcha!” moments, what meaning can life hold?
A group associated with AQIM claimed responsibility, using facebook, within two hours. Protection of sources cannot have been a consideration.
I don’t see how a FB claim by any particular organization (and there is also the issue of when one knows about it, vs when it is made) negates the “classified” designations for many parts of the “information.” As I posted below, the waters have been sufficiently muddied (by Petraeus, among others in the intel community) so that the fog of war (how that for a double metaphor?) will provide a sufficient smoke-screen here.
Anyway, what are the odds that Rice actually will be nominated for Sec. of State? It should be Kerry.
I agree that people here are far too worked up about trying to make this a “watergate moment”. Obama is not Nixon. The press hated Nixon and worship Obama with fawning adulation, they will never dig enough to allow it to become in issue, and would no doubt work with the administration to cover up any evidence they had. Furthermore Obama could hold a press conference and say:
“Yeah I lied to get re-elected. It worked suckers. You mad bro?”
and his supporters on the street, in the media, and in congress would clap and cheer. The scandals already verifiable about Obama would have taken him down, or made him unelectable, were he Republican. Obama could make a video of him and his buddies raping children in the oval office and post it to YouTube, but the establishment still would not allow him to be impeached and removed. It. Will. Not. Happen.
Jennifer Rubin at Wapo/blogs/RightTurn is reporting that the president’s classified briefing contained the information about the Al Qaeda affiliates but that unclassified talking points given to Rice did not. I posted the following at Ms. Rubin’s blog:
“Oh My Gosh! So, Obama sent Rice out to the Sunday shows with unclassified information that was missing crucial information. As a result, perhaps, Rice made statements that denied what was stated in Obama’s classified version of that information. In effect, Obama was the one who removed the line about terrorists from Rice’s talking points. Oh my gosh! Rice is going to be seriously angry when she learns about this.”
Seriously, I think that Rice was made the messenger as a means of allowing the administration both to give a sanguine report to the nation and to have deniability in case the report blew back on them.
A small note. The attack at Benghazi was NOT a terrorist attack.
It was a military operation by enemy forces.
I really don’t want to use bogus terminology here. Part of our problem is the language we choose to use to discuss the war we have been in since November 1979.
Finally somebody’s said it. We are engaged in a war with “violent non-state actors” (they’re working on getting themselves a state in Libya and Egypt though) who conducted an operation against a legitimate military target. As far as I know no civilians were targeted, or even harmed as collateral. If we really were detaining and torturing prisoners at that site (as some have suggested), then they may well have been more in accordance with the laws of war than we were in that particular instance (rapes excluded). We need to recognize that the enemy is a military organization that needs to be taken out with military means, no more of the appeasement and “outreach” that this administration so seems to favor.
Woouldn’t altering a document like that be a serious crime? If Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby can go to jail for supposedly lying to the FBI, what sort of penalty does that crime deserve?
WHENEVER WHATEVER THE PERSON WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPOPNSIBE FOR THIS MESS LIVES AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE IN WASHINGTON D.C. SO WHADDA ARE “U” GOINGT TO DO ABOUT IT!
SO FAR ALL I’VE HEARD FROM GOP & DEMS APPEARING ON TV IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO SPEAK UP? TO WHICH I REPLY “WE DID-GROW A PAIR YOU IIMBECILES!” AND GET ON WITH THE IMPEACHMENT!
CHECK “6″
After listening to all (I think) of the Congress-people come out of the hearings yesterday on C-Span, I still find things as clear as mud. There was some blather about the “classified part” of the talking points” as opposed to the non-classified part, and that the former could not be stated to the public. Also that the first attack appeared to be “spontaneous” with looters etc., but the second one on the annex carried out by experienced, organized, well-armed attackers, (obviously able to fire mortars accurately) who possibly acted fast to take advantage of the first situation. A little something for everyone there. You could hear the reporters ask questions again and again, trying to get clarification on the Rice issue (it’s not as if they are ignoring it) but the answers were muddy. The overall effect, I think, is to blunt some of the “complete cover-up” meme, but Rice’s presentations still seem odd, although it is possible that she made enough vague inferences to possible terrorists, or whatever, to cover herself. I have heard sound bites, but NOT the complete version of any of her schticks.