Skip to comments.Petraeus: CIA’s initial talking points on Benghazi mentioned Al Qaeda — but reference was removed
Posted on 11/16/2012 1:37:46 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The (former) director of the CIA doesn’t know why the CIA's finalized talking points omitted a key detail?
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that "Al Qaeda involvement" was suspected --- but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed"
"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," [Rep. Peter] King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."
Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line "was taken out."
The obvious suspicion is that the White House or some other political actor up the food chain expunged the Al Qaeda reference because it was inconvenient to the Foreign Policy President's "I destroyed Al Qaeda" reelection narrative. But Petraeus is no longer beholden to the administration. If that's what happened, or if it's what he suspected might have happened, why didn’t he say so today? His reputation had already taken a hit because of the bad early intel from the CIA on Benghazi before anyone knew who Paula Broadwell was. If that intel was actually the product of interference from political forces, he has every reason to clear his name by saying so. Instead, it sounds like he acknowleged today that the CIA did indeed ultimately approve the talking points Rice used that omitted the reference to Al Qaeda. Er, why’d they do that? If someone in a political office was pressuring the CIA to change the document, Petraeus would surely know about it, no?
Meanwhile, in a separate House Intel Committee briefing with DNI James Clapper and acting CIA Director Mike Morell:
Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized [the talking points the White House initially relief on]. And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.
The three biggest names in American intelligence still haven’t been able to figure out who removed a key part of an intel finding that’s been hotly disputed in public for two months? That’s like Obama needing an investigation to find out what he did or didn’t order the military to do to rescue Americans pinned down at the CIA annex on the night of the attack. How hard would it be to find this out? Presumably the CIA uses the same basic word processing programs as every other organization; go back through the saved drafts and figure out where the reference to Al Qaeda mysteriously disappeared.
What’s doubly curious about all this is that any of these guys could have simply said, “Well, there were early signs of Al Qaeda involvement but nothing firm enough at the time to warrant inclusion in a statement to the public.” That’s arguably true: Eli Lake reported back on October 1 that U.S. intelligence had intercepted communications during and after the attack between people in Ansar al-Sharia and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. That’s strong evidence of coordination but maybe not a smoking gun. Since then, U.S. officials have gotten firmer about AQIM’s involvement; there was even a report a few weeks ago about jihadis from Al Qaeda in Iraq possibly being involved. My point, though, is that neither Petraeus, Clapper, nor Morell appear to be defending the agency on grounds that the early intel wasn’t ripe enough yet. It sounds from King and Fox’s report like they’re kinda sorta conceding that, yeah, maybe the Al Qaeda reference shouldn’t have been removed. Or maybe that’s just King’s/Fox’s interpretation of what they said? This is why public hearings would be useful.
Where is the outrage, obviously this is the biggest coverup in modern times. America you suck for not caring. Obama is lying and he is a treasonous criminal. I hate the American People. To you I say “GO to hell”.
RE: Where is the outrage, obviously this is the biggest coverup in modern times
I heard a liberal on MSNBC remark:
“Let’s have a sense of perspective here, what’s the death of four people compared to the thousands of deaths as a result of the wars Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where’s the outrage in that”
That should be very comforting to the personnel and their families of the 285+ embassies and consulates around the world. ‘Since people died in Iraq it doesn’t matter if you die too.’
Still no answer as to who decided to blame a video for the attack. Somebody offered it up, and they went with it.
Barry Chin was watching a basketball game or playing video games, Michelle was eating a horse, so we are left with the administration’s chief and only policy maker Valerie “The Iranian” Jarrett.
It is sadistic sick treason and sedition for top executive officials at the highest level of government, in the CIA, in the State Department, and the White House, even the Defense Secretary, to know a terrorist attack is under way, and they are watching it on multiple video live, from on-site aviation assets, watching the ambassador get dragged around and killed, and former Navy Seals executed and Americans beaten, and they order the Military to stand down three times while Americans die, AND THEN THEY LIE ABOUT IT, SOME BS ABOUT A MOHAMMED VIDEO FROM HOLLYWOOD.
Sick bastards every one of them. They should all be tried and hung.
Where was Axlehole? He’s a political strategist. Would anyone here be shocked if he gave Rice her entire brief and list of shows to do and not do?
Petraeus lied the first time. Obama gave lies to Susan Rice to tell to the American people.
Petraeus confirmed that the White House had the information that the Embassy Attack was terrorism.
1. Obama knew that his CIA Chief was having an affair. He was at risk and could be used. This an almost certain fact. No way in the world that info would be kept from the President.
2. Obama supplied weapons to rebels in Libya when they were overthrowing Quaddafi. Turns out, those rebels were Al Queda. Oops. This is now public knowledge.
3. Those rebels began supplying arms to rebels in Syria.
4. The big unknown. Something very bad was happening or about to happen in Libya. Likely, TONS of US weapons were being shipped to Syria out of Libya.
5. Obama sent Ambassador Stevens to lead a CIA team to get the US weapons back.
6. The CIA “may” have been capturing and interrogating prisoners in the CIA annex in Benghazzi.
7. The US got double-crossed in some sort of arms deal or agreement. Not sure what it was.
8. Al Queda rebels attacked the Consulate, then the CIA annex. They were likely looking for prisoners that the US had taken. Depending on #4 and #6, they were also looking to get the Ambassador/CIA lead.
9. Whatever it was, it was bad enough Obama thought it would cost him the election. So they made up the ridiculous “video” cover story and stalled and lied as long as they could. He allowed Americans to die instead of tring to rescue them in order to “keep the lid” on the situation.
10. The Obama Administration will continue to lie and cover this up. The Main Stream Media will aid and abet the coverup.
>> Where is the outrage,
You think you’re the only one who’s outraged?
The coverup is but one of numerous issues. I’m also outraged about the bastards pissing on the 1st Amendment while the ACLU, Leftwing Media, Hollywood, and largely Congress said nothing. Hope you’re outraged about that too.
Your points parallel what I have been thinking about the Benghazi debacle, with minor alternatives (I think stingers and/or blow-pipe missiles were the big concern and that Obama was panicked that our distribution of same to Islamic militants was going to surface pre-election). I usually don’t go for conspiracy theories, because people generally aren’t smart or disciplined enough to pull them off. But all this, including the video and the Petraeus resignation, sure has the feeling of pieces of a larger picture, deliberately hidden.
It’s hard to believe that CIA had nothing to do with the creation of the anti-MO video, and possibly its dissemination, but at the very least prior knowledge of it.
Was the video a operation gone awry?
An operation that worked at least partially as someone intended?
Is the Petraeus infidelity a distracting cover story for ousting him for letting it happen, and concealing government involvement? Or for not going along with the video story the admin wanted?
The Khawam sisters’ White House connections are too convenient; players or grifter/wannabees?
OBAMA LIED - PEOPLE DIED.
Along with everyone in the media. There needs to be a total house cleaning.
Why has one congressman not asked Petreus “Who edited the intel report? Why did you like to congress? Who told you to lie?”
Sadly, nothing will be done about this. They now have total control and I don’t believe this can be turned around. And there’s no doubt many republicans are in on the deal. I have to admit they’re persistent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.