Benghazi Testimony By Petraeus Shreds GOP Attack O

[Seascapes]

http://www.nationalmemo.com/benghazi...ttack-on-rice/

Petraeus blew apart the half-baked theories offered by McCain and Graham—and left them looking foolish. Petraeus not only confirmed that any allusion to al Qaeda had been removed from the talking points given to Rice, but that his agency had consented to that decision:

[Dedicated Mind]

mcain is losing his chairmanship of armed services committee due to term limits. the only committee left for him to serve on is indian affairs. he had dropped from leader of the party to an insignificant senator. he is trying to be relevant by starting a special committee on libya but the senate isn't going for it. he is an irrelevant sore loser.

[Praxeas]

I think you are all ridiculous. What happened in Libya was a HUGE tragedy that needs to be investigated. Questions need to be asked and answers need to be forthcoming. Instead it's been like pulling teeth.

You guys play partisan politics. Had it happened during a Republican President's term you'd be all over it as would the Democrats

Americans died during that attack. Remember that. McCain is a Vet who is concerned about what happened as are other Americans

[deacon blues]

Let's look at a less biased source---Washington Post:

Former CIA director David H. Petraeus told Congress on Friday that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, was clearly an act of terrorism, but he did not resolve the question of when the agency reached that conclusion, according to law makers who attended the closed-door sessions.

Several members of the House and Senate intelligence committees who heard Petraeus’s testimony said that he indicated he believed immediately after the incident that it was a terrorist attack. That appeared to conflict with testimony he gave them three days after the attack, when he said it appeared to have begun as a “spontaneous” assault that was overtaken by “extremists.”

The timing of the CIA’s conclusion has become a contentious issue in Congress, where some prominent Republicans have charged that Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and President Obama’s leading candidate to become secretary of state, knowingly presented a whitewashed account in television appearances on Sept...16.

Reading from administration talking points, Rice hewed to the “spontaneous” theory, saying that the attack began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video that was privately produced in the United States and was hijacked by “opportunistic extremist elements.” In the television interviews, she said this was the “best information” available, but stressed that the matter was under investigation.

Petraeus, who has not appeared in public since he resigned last week after revelations of an extramarital affair, avoided a swarm of reporters and photographers awaiting his arrival for the early morning hearings held in secret briefing rooms three floors underground in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.

“You can blame it on us. We wanted to spare him,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate panel, told reporters after Petraeus had left.

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the House panel had only briefly discussed the former general’s affair with former Army officer Paula Broadwell and that Petraeus had assured them his resignation related only to that and not to the Benghazi attack.

“He realizes what he’s done [to] himself, and to the CIA,” King told Fox News. “He apologized, but once he got into his testimony, he was the same old General Petraeus.”

According to accounts provided by intelligence officials, the CIA concluded early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack by definition, because any assault on a U.S. government installation with heavy weapons and substantial firepower could not be classified otherwise. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

In the swirl of initial reporting about the attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, two accounts made their way into the first round of analysis, the officials said. Reports from the ground in Libya described a demonstration at the Benghazi mission, similar to a large anti-U.S. protest the same day outside the U.S. Embassy in Egypt.

At the same time, intelligence quickly uncovered links to militant groups, including associates of al-Qaeda. The administration did not make the terrorist links public until the Sept. 19 congressional testimony by Matthew G. Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Since then, the CIA and other intelligence analysts have settled on what amounts to a hybrid view, suggesting that the Cairo protest sparked militants in Libya, who quickly mobilized an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

The details about possible al-Qaeda involvement were not included in talking points initially used by both Petraeus and Rice because they were preliminary and were based on classified sources, intelligence officials said.

Critics of administration conduct have suggested that the White House excised any reference to terrorism for political reasons.

A senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points said Friday that they “reflected what was known at the time” and “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.” In addition to concerns about classified sources, the official said, “when links were so tenuous — as they still are — it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers to avoid setting off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions.”

The use of the word “extremists” by both Petraeus and Rice in the days after the attack, the official said, was “meant to capture the range of participants. The controversy this word choice caused came as a surprise.”

In addition to an internal State Department inquiry, several House and Senate committees are investigating what happened before, during and after the incident. In a sharply worded letter Friday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others who have called for formation of a Watergate-style select committee, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said that standing committees were fully capable of examining the issue.

Reid accused the advocates of a special committee of manipulating Congress “in service of partisan agendas.”

“The elections are over,” he wrote. “It is time to put an end to the partisan politicization of national security and begin working together to strengthen our efforts to dismantle and destroy the terrorist networks that threaten us.”

But Petraeus did not appear to provide any answers. The former CIA chief, King said, “clearly believes that [the attack] did not arise out of a demonstration, that it was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement.”

Democrats noted that this was hardly a revelation, and that it had been the administration’s public position since Sept. 19, three days after Rice’s interviews.

Petraeus’s testimony, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said, “completely debunked the conspiracy theory that this was some political machination coming out of the White House.”

So the Post says that the testimony didn't provide any answers. A Democrat lawmaker claims that his testimony "debunked" the conspiracy theories. And Seascape gives us a link to a liberal hack website.

CASE CLOSED....

Whatever...

[deacon blues]

From Fox News

..Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.....

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House...

"To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and why. ... I'd say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out," King told Fox News. "That, to me, has to be pursued."..

Petraeus left Capitol Hill around noon, after testifying in private hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees. In his wake, Republicans and Democrats battled over whether his testimony should raise more suspicions about the administration's handling of the attack...

King and other Republicans indicated they still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the strike...

"No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said...

Petraeus' testimony both challenges the Obama administration's repeated claims that the attack was a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control...

"His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a "different recollection."..

Still, the claim that the CIA's original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill...

"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."..

King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line "was taken out."..

A congressional source familiar with this week's testimony also told Fox News that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from "Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals to extremist organizations" -- which had the effect of minimizing the role of terrorists in the attack...

"It really changed the whole tone of it," King told Fox News...

Democrats, though, suggested Republicans were taking the whole issue out of context...

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said claims the talking points were changed are "completely wrong." Besides, he said, the affiliation of Ansar al-Sharia, the militant group suspected in the attack, to Al Qaeda is still being examined...

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the discrepancy can be attributed to the classified talking points that some saw versus the unclassified version that others, like U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, used...

Lawmakers are focusing on the talking points in the first place because of concern over the account Rice gave on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16, when she repeatedly claimed the attack was spontaneous -- Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time...

But a source said Rice had access to both classified and unclassified information on Benghazi. King said the administration has "hidden behind" the claim that Rice was only using the intelligence community's best assessment. But he said Petraeus' testimony suggests their best assessment conflicted with what Rice said on Sept. 16...

One source told Fox News that Petraeus "has no idea what was provided" to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.

"He had no idea she was going on talk shows" until the White House announced it one or two days before, the source said.....

Obama in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism against Rice "outrageous" and told those lawmakers to "go after me" instead...

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice's defense Thursday, saying after a House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community's "best assessment" at the time...

"Those who have suggested that Ambassador Rice was politicizing the intelligence or misrepresenting what the intelligence community was putting forward as its best assessment are either unfamiliar with the facts, or willfully disregarding them," he said...

Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Another legit news source reporting the facts that contradict Seascapes link...

[deacon blues]

Also from Washington Post op/ed:

Posted at 12:06 PM ET, 11/16/2012
Petraeus’s answers raise more questions
By Jennifer Rubin
This post has been updated.

Sometimes a dastardly conspiracy is just a dastardly conspiracy. Indeed the Benghazi episode, at least the response to the attack, is beginning to look more and more like the work of a partisan cabal afraid of upsetting the president’s reelection prospects, exactly as conservative critics have been saying for two months.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is providing a glimpse of what occurred in hearings today in which former CIA director David Petraeus testified: Fox News reports:

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.
“No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points,” he said.
Petraeus was heading next to the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify. At the same time, lawmakers unexpectedly convened a briefing with top members of various committees to examine a Sept. 25 letter to President Obama that asked a series of classified questions on Benghazi.
Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
“His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection.”
Still, the claim that the CIA’s original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.
“The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” 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.”
Watergate had the tape with the 18 1/2-minute gap, and now we have the mystery of the talking points. This raises a slew of questions including these:

* If they were changed, who changed them?

* Why were they changed?

* Did the president know or approve of the changes?

* If Petraeus saw that they were changed, why did he not come forward sooner?

* If other senior officials were aware of the change in story, why didn’t they alert others, Congress or the American people?

* What was national security adviser Thomas Donilon’s role in this?

* Did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice have access to the original talking points and/or was she aware they had been changed?

* If she didn’t know anything other than the talking points and had no operational responsibility for Benghazi, what was she doing on the talk-show circuit on Sept. 16?

* What information did the secretary of state have and when did she have it. If she, like Petraeus, knew what the real origin of the attack was, why weren’t she and her press staff being more forthright with the public?

* Fox reports that Petraeus’s agency “determined immediately that ‘Al Qaeda involvement’ was suspected.” If the CIA knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack, why did the White House press secretary insist on Sept. 14 it was all about the anti-Muslim video? Why did the president take the same approach in interviews with Univision and “60 Minutes”?

Keep in mind the aftermath of Benghazi is only one aspect of the Benghazi debacle. Other important areas to explore are why the White House was seemingly unaware of the deteriorating security situation in Libya and whether our “delay and then lead-from-behind” strategy left us without accurate intelligence and allowed jihadists a running start in Libya (not to mention Syria, Mali, Yemen and elsewhere).

Frankly until Congress gets to the bottom of this, no one in the administration should be slotted into any new senior national security office. Maybe Rice was an innocent dupe, but we dare not reward her for insufficient curiosity or elevate any other officials if they were involved in misdeeds or demonstrated gross incompetence. And if White House officials are implicated in intentional dishonesty (or just plain cluelessness), they should step down as well.

The good news for the president is that all the current national security slots are filled (albeit the CIA’s by an acting chief). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has generously agreed to stay on, which she should, until a replacement can be found. In this case, that should follow a full accounting of the Benghazi fiasco.

[canam]

seascapes is bathing in the koolaid as well as drinking it

[deacon blues]

Soooooooo.....

Nice try Seascapes, but this one aint going away easily. Four Americans dead, they asked for help for months, they were refused....

You're not in the least bit curious? Or are you blind by partisanship that four dead Americans don't matter to you?

[Cindy]

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Seascapes

http://www.nationalmemo.com/benghazi...ttack-on-rice/

Petraeus blew apart the half-baked theories offered by McCain and Graham—and left them looking foolish. Petraeus not only confirmed that any allusion to al Qaeda had been removed from the talking points given to Rice, but that his agency had consented to that decision:

In the final analysis, your President knew the truth and lied. He also lied about refusing t o help the people on the ground. Why you defend this liar is beyond foolish.