https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...3Si49DEsnaNodV
Printable View
Petraeus: CIA secrets cut from public account on BenghaziQuote:
Originally Posted by Golddogs
By Jonathan S. Landay and Maria Recio
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday, Nov. 16, that the agency had secretly assessed that al-Qaida-linked gunmen attacked the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11.
But he said classified references to the terrorist group were cut from talking points on which U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice relied for television interviews.
Petraeus testified in closed hearings of the House and Senate intelligence committees a week after his startling admission to adultery and his resignation from the CIA roiled Washington, igniting a scandal that grew to ensnare the Marine general who commands U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.
Speaking after the back-to-back sessions, lawmakers said Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general who once commanded the U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, apologized for his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. But the issue didn’t figure at all in his testimony or their questions, they said.
“The general did not address any specifics of the affair, of that issue. What he did say in his opening statement was that he regrets the circumstances that led to his resignation,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I.
Petraeus was kept hidden from the news media as he was escorted in and out of the hearings, which the committees held as they conduct two of four congressional investigations into the Benghazi attacks, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, another State Department staffer and two CIA contract security officers.
Republican lawmakers have led a political outcry over the attack. They have targeted Rice with charges that in five TV shows five days after the assaults, she cast the attacks as stemming from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video and not as a terrorist operation, in a deliberate bid to protect President Barack Obama’s record on terrorism in the closing weeks of his re-election campaign.
Several senior Republican senators, including John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said this week that they would oppose Rice if Obama nominates her to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has made it clear that she doesn’t want to stay on for the second term.
Petraeus, lawmakers said, told the committees that from the beginning the CIA had assessed that members of al-Qaida affiliates were involved in the assaults.
But the references to al-Qaida were struck from the final version of unclassified talking points that the intelligence community originally approved for public use by House Intelligence Committee members and then provided to Rice for her television appearances, they said.
“The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out … even though it was clearly evident to the CIA that there was al-Qaida involvement,” said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.
He added that the references to “al-Qaida involvement” were dropped for “indications of extremists.”
King quoted Petraeus as saying he didn’t know who made the revisions during a “long, interagency process.”
A senior U.S. official who is familiar with the matter said the al-Qaida references were struck from the unclassified version because they came from secret sources.
Moreover, the network’s links to the attacks were tenuous, and making them public at that time could have skewed further intelligencegathering and tainted an FBI criminal investigation into the attacks, the official said.
The unclassified talking points reflected what the CIA “believed at that point in time,” said the senior U.S. official, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the sensitive issue.
“The points were reviewed by CIA leadership and coordinated in the interagency at a senior level. The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations or play down that this was an attack. There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”
It remained unclear, however, why the CIA and the administration said there was a protest outside the consulate when Libya’s interim president and witnesses were saying none had taken place, and administration officials said at first that they couldn’t confirm there was one.
Administration officials eventually conceded there was no protest and that the assaults appeared to involve militants from a local Islamist group, Ansar al Shariah, and others linked to al-Qaida’s North Africa affiliate, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.
Republicans said they still had questions about the attacks. They included why the State Department hadn’t strengthened security at the consulate and annex given that Libyan authorities had been unable to curb escalating violence by Islamist groups and militias that refused to disband after overthrowing the late dictator Moammar Gadhafi in October 2011.
“The State Department did not take adequate measures to protect personnel,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “We need to find out more. Clearly the security measures were not adequate.”
So, finally at the end of this 'article', we read:
"It remained unclear, however, why the CIA and the administration said there was a protest outside the consulate when Libya’s interim president and witnesses were saying none had taken place, and administration officials said at first that they couldn’t confirm there was one.
Administration officials eventually conceded there was no protest and that the assaults appeared to involve militants from a local Islamist group, Ansar al Shariah, and others linked to al-Qaida’s North Africa affiliate, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.
Republicans said they still had questions about the attacks. They included why the State Department hadn’t strengthened security at the consulate and annex given that Libyan authorities had been unable to curb escalating violence by Islamist groups and militias that refused to disband after overthrowing the late dictator Moammar Gadhafi in October 2011.
“The State Department did not take adequate measures to protect personnel,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “We need to find out more. Clearly the security measures were not adequate.”
And now we are supposed to buy the "make-believe" story promulgated by this oligarchy, and that should provide cover for Susan Rice???? It MAY remain UNCLEAR to all the Obamaites as to why they made up a story, charged an American citizen for it all, and even jailed him to show how totally corrupt and willing to 'invent' a story to protect their messiah from possible ridicule for all his bloviating about how HE had "defeated" al-Qaida, and they were no longer to be concerned about.
Sadly, there may not be more than 10% of his voters that give a damn, and certainly the various toads and sycophantic MSP will do all they can to insure the messiah doesn't get any of this phoney crap tainting him.
All you lefties that are in favor of this blatently obvious cover-up, need to remind yourselves there were 4 AMERICANS KILLED in this atrocity, and if it weren't for the ineptocracy of this regime, they could have been properly protected. And then to have this empty suit stand there in a press conference and tell us Susan Rice is not to be criticized for her administrative ass-kissing-performance? I for one don't for a minute give any creedence to her only stating what she was told. As far as I'm concerned, she probably had a significant part in helping to make up that total LIE.
When will the scapegoat for this complete sham be released? I hope he sues the government for trillions.
UB
You act like this is the first time someone has taken the fall for the Commader and Chief. Remember Oliver North and Iran-Contra Affair? It could be just as easily said that he took the fall for Reagan.
Harry Reid must think he is a king ... he repeated that he would not allow a select Senate committee to be created to investigate the Benghazi affair. After his behavior during the campaign, I have to conclude that the man is totally unprincipled, brutally so.
And, remind me, how many Americans were killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstone
BTW...I'm confused by your phrase: Commader and Chief. If you are talking about Reagan's time in office as President of the USA, most of us called him the "commander in chief".
As to the current occupier of the White House, the more appropriate title would be the "commandeer in chief". But my personal favorite term of endearment would be "communist in chief."
A lot of people were killed as a result of that decision. It doesn't make it okay just because they weren't Americans. And thanks for the correction on my spelling error when referring to Reagan. It's a shame you were able to get the current President's title correct as well. I certainly have more respect for him than I did for Reagan, but I would still never disrespect the office intentionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill
Did you just say you have more respect fo Oboma than Reagan??? What have you been smokin? I'm sorry I should have said, Dude put the bong down man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackstone
I absolutely do. I did not hate the man, but I did not respect many of his positions on social issues, like his support of the Apartheid regime of the Union of South Africa, support of Bob Jones University, use of the "Southern Strategy" in his election campaign. So, no, I did not have a lot of respect for Ronald Reagan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Thompson1
While this shiny ball seems to have captured many folks attention. I am curious, why there was no attention given here to the 12 attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies which resulted in the deaths of 60 people during the Bush administration? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...tic_facilities.
I could not find any past discussions of any of these incidents. Perhaps I missed them? If not, could someone explain the difference between this current tragic incident and these other 12? Exactly who should be held accountable for those? Thanks.