Petraeus Testifies That He Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Immediately But CIA Info Was

[Wehrwolfen]

Petraeus Testifies That He Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Immediately … But CIA Info Was Changed?

By: Jan Morgan
11.16.2012



For two hours, David Patraeus testified before lawmakers today. The most pertinent information from that testimony was this: the information and talking points intelligence turned over to the White House regarding the Libya attack, were CHANGED after they were handed over to the White House.

The one question that has not been answered is WHO MADE THESE CHANGES BEFORE THEY WERE HANDED TO RICE for release? Whoever made this change is responsible for the dispersal of UNTRUTH to the American people and the world regarding the motives behind the attack.

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. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who spoke to reporters after Petraeus testified before the House Intelligence Committee, indicated he and other lawmakers still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the attack.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Petraeus Testifies That He Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Immediately … But CIA Info Was Changed? :: Jan Morgan Media

 

[Zoom-boing]

I just posted this in another thread.

Former CIA director David Petraeus on Friday testified in front of Congress on the terrorist acts against the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that took place on September 11th. His testimony will no doubt place him severely at odds with both the Obama administration and its official stance on the attacks.

It's a good thing Petraeus is already out of a job, otherwise he would probably be asked to resign this afternoon.

Fox News and CNN both have both released stories earlier confirming that David Petraeus will state in no uncertain terms that both he and the CIA knew that the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi, immediately after it happened, was a terrorist attack linked to al-Qaeda, and not the random act of violence in response to a YouTube video that the Obama administration initially said it was.

Not only does this contradict the numerous statements that President Obama made, but it also contradicts UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was seen on many Sunday morning news programs on September 16th stating that it was in response to a YouTube video insulting Muslims.

In the Friday testimony, Petraeus reportedly testified that the al-Qaeda element was initially removed from Rice's CIA talking points, according to Congressman Peter King, who led the congressional session and briefed the media afterwards.

Petraeus is also prepared to testify that his initial remarks were altered by the Obama administration, which would explain why the briefing he gave shortly after the attack was similar to the one given by Ambassador Rice. When speaking before Congress, Petraeus appears ready to distance himself from those comments as well as the administration's initial stance.

Congressman King reportedly asked the former CIA director if he concurred with the administration that the attack on Benghazi great out of a spontaneous demonstration against the aforementioned YouTube video insulting the Prophet Mohammed. King said that that is not what his recollection was when it came to what Petraeus initially said.

Benghazi Cover Up: Petraeus Says CIA Knew it Was Terror Attack, White House Edited Talking Points


Video w/King at link.

 

[R.D.]

And this is why Petreaus was was played and hung out to dry the day after the election.

 

[Foxfyre]

So it still begs the question--the question that nobody at the press conference this week had the balls to ask--who told Ambassador Rice, days after the attack on Benghazi, to go out and tell a bald faced lie on five different Sunday news programs? Who changed the story? And why? And what was she promised in return for doing it? (And if she didn't know the truth by that time she is certainly too naive and clueless to be in that position and certainly is not competent for a promotion. And if she did know the truth and still put out the lie as adamently as she did, she is too dishonest for that position and/or promotion.)

The spectacle of President Obama defending his pretty, delicate U.N. Ambassador at the press conference, and the press letting him get away with that, was an abomination to journalistic integrity. Can you imagine President Bush getting away with complaining that the press or the Democrats were unfairly picking on John Bolton?

 

[emptystep]

tiny, winy correction on that first sentence there:
"For two hours, David Patraeus testified before lawmakers today. The most pertinent information from that testimony was this: the information and talking points intelligence turned over to the White House regarding the Libya attack, were CHANGED after they were handed over to the White House. "

The word AFTER. Rep. Peter King stated in the press meeting after commission hearing that Petreaus did not know when the changes were made.

 

[blastoff]

People died and Barry & Co. lied.

I suggest the OlBat and Truthy hold their breath until the lamestream media get outraged over it.

 

[Foxfyre]

tiny, winy correction on that first sentence there:
"For two hours, David Patraeus testified before lawmakers today. The most pertinent information from that testimony was this: the information and talking points intelligence turned over to the White House regarding the Libya attack, were CHANGED after they were handed over to the White House. "

The word AFTER. Rep. Peter King stated in the press meeting after commission hearing that Petreaus did not know when the changes were made.

And I believe him. Does anybody believe Petraeus is the only high ranking person that ever committed an indiscretion? And now that we know that this indiscretion was BEFORE he was appointed director of the CIA and was ancient history as far as he and his wife were concerned, it just doesn't meet the smell test that the Administration or anybody else would make a big deal out of that now. Sort of suggests somebody in the Administration, knowing that Petraeus wouldn't play ball in a lie, might have had motive to engineer the whole thing to get rid of him? But were foiled when he agreed to testify anyway?

God willing Obama and his handlers and the leftwing press won't be able to bury this one as they have so many many other thing that should have been major scandals. If Susan Rice is appointed Secretary of State after this abomination, I fear we are doomed as a nation. There will be no truth, no honor, no justice, and no confidence that we can ever have in our government again.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

So it still begs the question--the question that nobody at the press conference this week had the balls to ask--who told Ambassador Rice, days after the attack on Benghazi, to go out and tell a bald faced lie on five different Sunday news programs? Who changed the story? And why? And what was she promised in return for doing it? (And if she didn't know the truth by that time she is certainly too naive and clueless to be in that position and certainly is not competent for a promotion. And if she did know the truth and still put out the lie as adamently as she did, she is too dishonest for that position and/or promotion.)

The spectacle of President Obama defending his pretty, delicate U.N. Ambassador at the press conference, and the press letting him get away with that, was an abomination to journalistic integrity. Can you imagine President Bush getting away with complaining that the press or the Democrats were unfairly picking on John Bolton?

No. Oblamer stated in his rare press conference that Rice was summoned to the White House and given those Talking Points and ordered to spew them on the various TV shows.

 

[Foxfyre]

So it still begs the question--the question that nobody at the press conference this week had the balls to ask--who told Ambassador Rice, days after the attack on Benghazi, to go out and tell a bald faced lie on five different Sunday news programs? Who changed the story? And why? And what was she promised in return for doing it? (And if she didn't know the truth by that time she is certainly too naive and clueless to be in that position and certainly is not competent for a promotion. And if she did know the truth and still put out the lie as adamently as she did, she is too dishonest for that position and/or promotion.)

The spectacle of President Obama defending his pretty, delicate U.N. Ambassador at the press conference, and the press letting him get away with that, was an abomination to journalistic integrity. Can you imagine President Bush getting away with complaining that the press or the Democrats were unfairly picking on John Bolton?

No. Oblamer stated in his rare press conference that Rice was summoned to the White House and given those Talking Points and ordered to spew them on the various TV shows.

He didn't exactly say that. He did say, however, that she was speaking on his authority and if they have any problem with her, they should go after him.

So the question remains:

1. Did Susan Rice know the truth when she went out that day? If not why not? And how can you think somebody so clueless is suited to be Secretary of State?
2. Did Susan Rice believe those talking points when she repeated them? If so, why would somebody willing to be so dishonest be a good choice for Secretary of State?
3. Did you change the story Mr. President? If you didn't know the truth days after the CIA knew the truth, why aren't heads rolling? You said the buck stops with you. Well we're asking you to tell us who sent Susan Rice out with a lie? And if you and your people didn't know it was a lie by that time, how are YOU competent to be the executive with power over the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence?
4. Did YOU tell Susan Rice to tell the lie, Mr. President? If not who did? And why has that person not been fired?

 

[BlindBoo]

Ya'll do understand that our enemies, the people who actually committed this crime, can also tune in to these broadcasts and gleen whatever information they can.

Of course you do. Ya'll just like whining about the President.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Ya'll do understand that our enemies, the people who actually committed this crime, can also tune in to these broadcasts and gleen whatever information they can.

Of course you do. Ya'll just like whining about the President.

Your user name is quite fitting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ya'll do understand that our enemies, the people who actually committed this crime, can also tune in to these broadcasts and gleen whatever information they can.

Of course you do. Ya'll just like whining about the President.

You do understand that our enemies, the people who actually committed this crime, already KNOW who did it and take great delight when they can use it to stir up more anger against the stupid evil Americans who don't appear to have a clue. You do understand that blaming the violence on a video was far more likely to stir up more violence than would be reporting the truth that it was a planned, orchestrated, and professionally executed terrorist attack?

What was to be gained by intentionally putting out a lie? I can't think of a single thing other than it protected Obama from being perceived as bungling foreign policy and protection of Americans in the days before the election.

 

[Moonglow]

So it still begs the question--the question that nobody at the press conference this week had the balls to ask--who told Ambassador Rice, days after the attack on Benghazi, to go out and tell a bald faced lie on five different Sunday news programs? Who changed the story? And why? And what was she promised in return for doing it? (And if she didn't know the truth by that time she is certainly too naive and clueless to be in that position and certainly is not competent for a promotion. And if she did know the truth and still put out the lie as adamently as she did, she is too dishonest for that position and/or promotion.)

The spectacle of President Obama defending his pretty, delicate U.N. Ambassador at the press conference, and the press letting him get away with that, was an abomination to journalistic integrity. Can you imagine President Bush getting away with complaining that the press or the Democrats were unfairly picking on John Bolton?

she was using the unclassified version.

 

[Moonglow]

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Petraeus explained that the CIA's draft points were sent to other intelligence agencies and to some federal agencies for review. Udall said Petraeus told them the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.

"The assessment that was publicly shared in unclassified talking points went through a process of editing," Udall said. "The extremist description was put in because in an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved."

Petraeus believed terrorists behind Libya attack - Yahoo! News

 

[Moonglow]

It's best you know what you are talking about before you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

[Bigfoot]

Benghazi will be Obama's legacy.

 

[Moonglow]

"The assessment that was publicly shared in unclassified talking points went through a process of editing," Udall said. "The extremist description was put in because in an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said it's still not clear how the final talking points emerged used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack when the White House sent her to appear in a series of television interviews. Rice said it appeared the attack was sparked by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

"The fact is, the reference to al-Qaida was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community," King said. "We need to find out who did it and why."

King said Petraeus had briefed the House committee on Sept. 14 and he does not recall Petraeus being so positive at that time that it was a terrorist attack. "He thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement," King said. "That was not my recollection."

Petraeus believed terrorists behind Libya attack - Yahoo! News

 

[Moonglow]

Benghazi will be Obama's legacy.

betraus was the head of CIA. surely it is his legacy also.

 

[Foxfyre]

Benghazi will be Obama's legacy.

I wish, because it would be poetic justice. But the media is doing its damndest to keep this as low profile as possible--that was obvious when they allowed Obama to filibuster and divert from every single tough question in that press conference. If it should start really getting legs and getting out of hand, however, you can look for some other major crisis to take over the front pages. And that way, just as all the other scandals have been, Benghazi will be forgotten and become unimportant in the people's perception.

 

[Moonglow]

And this is why Petreaus was was played and hung out to dry the day after the election.

That is not what betraus is saying, but what are facts to political hacks?