Petraeus Testimony: Obama knew; talking points altered.

think there are going to be a lot of backpedaling Democrats and Lefty talking heads. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi and her troop of ‘women for Susan Rice’ will acknowledge the news or just stick their heads in their ladyparts and yell ‘LA LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU!’.

It’s sexist, no matter what to this cabal of Julias who are setting women back about 60 years.  None of their complaints explains why she was sent out there in the first place. We’ll come back to the Democrats and their closing ranks around Rice again in this post.

But all of their protesting, race card playing and cries of sexism, as well as Obama’s indignant defending the Damsel in distress act, are for naught. Petraeus testified yesterday and he pretty much put the buck back on Obama’s desk.

BOOM: President told within 72 hours Benghazi attack linked to al-Qaida extremists
Excerpt emphasis added:

U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.

Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

This editing is supported by Petraeus’ remarks in closed-door session as mentioned by Rep. Peter King.

“No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points,” King told reporters after the House hearing on Friday. “His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” he said.

King, a New York Republican, said he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection,” referring to his Sept. 14 briefing to members of Congress that the attack on our Benghazi consulate was a “flash mob” gone wild in response to an Internet video.

“The original talking points were much more specific about al-Qaida involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” King said, adding that a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the al-Qaida affiliates line “was taken out.” By whom and for what reason remain open questions.

This begs the question, which we raised in an earlier editorial, of whether Petraeus’ Sept. 14 briefing was influenced by an administration that had knowledge of his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. – Investors Business Daily

Someone altered the talking points after they were turned over to several groups; some of which were the DOJ and the White House. Who altered them and why? Why lie about it unless you’re covering up something about the attack you don’t want the public to know? It could just be incompetence, but to try to stick the excuse this administration did on it had to have served some purpose.
More on the testimony including a clip with Rep. Peter King.  FOX report via Gateway Pundit:

 

Back to Susan Rice. Democrats went into overdrive to defend her and some of what Petraeus testified to helps their argument, but no matter how you dice it – Rice looks bad. There is all this talk of ‘classified and unclassified talking points’ being used to excuse her from her statements. To borrow from Biden with a grin, I say, Malarkey. It’s been made clear that classified or unclassified – they were altered by someone beyond the CIA. So really, Rice lied anyway whether it be in a classified or unclassified way.Either she’s a useful idiot who is clueless can be sent out to do any dirty task this administration wants her to or she knew and willfully lied to the American people just because the administration told her to. Either way, she’s gotta go.

It is worth noting Petraeus did not give testimony under oath. Why the Hell not? We can also expect this to drag out for a long time with an estimated “nine agencies” involved according to the story at PJ Tatler.  All those agencies involved are now being blamed by the White House for the alteration of the talking points, creating a massive job of trying to track down who saw the talking points and when. Who altered them and when – also, who were they then sent to. From Powerline:

In light of the testimony of General Petraeus that the talking points used by Susan Rice differed from his talking points and that he doesn’t know who changed them, the administration is offering a new defense of the highly misleading talking points. It now claims that the talking points were changed by “multiple agencies” to protect intelligence sources. Previously, the administration contended that the talking points Rice used were the product of the CIA and that, to the extent they proved erroneous, it was because the intelligence was in flux.

To fully assess the White House’s latest line would require a comparison of Petraeus’ talking points and the ones used by Rice. However, even without such an analysis, it’s safe to say that the White House’s excuse almost surely doesn’t wash.

The problem with what Rice said on the talk shows isn’t that she didn’t provide enough detailed intelligence. The problem is that she erred on the basic question of the nature of the attack.

Fundamentally, the attack was an act of terrorism by armed extremists with connections to al Qaeda, as the CIA knew almost immediately, and President Obama was told within 72 hours of the event. The attack was not the action of a mob acting spontaneously.

Accordingly, any talking points used on the Sunday talk shows needed to state that the attack was al Qaeda-related terrorism, not just spontaneous mob violence. Otherwise, the administration, through Rice, would mislead the American public, as, in fact, it did.

And the talking points easily could have reflected that the attack was al Qaeda-related terrorism without including the kind of detail that might jeopardize intelligence sources. After all, the administration eventually conceded the point with no apparent setback to U.S. intelligence.

Thus, the administration’s latest line, like its prior statements, seems to be a crock.

But having advanced this line, the administration needs to identify the “multiple agencies” that doctored the CIA’s talking points and the individuals within these agencies who did the doctoring.

At the end of the day, the investigation could just cut to the chase and ask the White House who vetted, confirmed and approved these talking points which were finally used. The President  himself got up and defended Rice, saying she went out and said what he told her to. So, once again the buck stops on Obama’s desk.

This is just what we know from tiny bits of testimony discussed. I am sure there was a lot more that went on. These hearings were behind closed doors likely for national security reasons, however, the public should be able to watch any further testimony. This should be public and an independent counsel should be assigned. For all the talk of wanting to cooperate, President Obama clearly has not been, by his own admission. Emphasis added is mine:

At one point he said: “And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.” It was, of course, just as important to find out what happened in Benghazi before the election, but we should be grateful to the president for giving us this inadvertent glimpse into the role politics played in his thinking about Benghazi before he was reelected.

The president, perhaps realizing he had made a revealing slip of the tongue, went on to insist that he’d been providing information all along. But in response to a question about criticism of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice from Senators John McCain and Lindsey ­Graham, the president slipped again. “For them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Ben­ghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous.”

If Susan Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” why then was she sent out to represent the administration in multiple television interviews five days after the attacks? – The Weekly Standard

Let’s drive the point home to the White House one more time – Whoever changed the talking points is irrelevant. The President used them and therefore had to have approved of them. Senator Chambliss agrees and will be coming at the President per the President’s request (video compliments of Gateway Pundit):

 

Related Reading:

#Benghazi: Lies, Lies and More Damned Lies

Rohrabacher: Administration Lied to American People About Benghazi

More Hot Air From White House and Eric Holder

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 17, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, CIA, Democrats, Libya.
Tagged with: .
LadyLiberty1885 (A.P. Dillon) is a Conservative minded mother and wife living in the Triangle area of NC. Mrs. Dillon began writing in 2009 when she founded LadyLiberty1885. Her writing can also be found at Da Tech Guy and at Wizbang. Mrs. Dillon also write science fiction and children's novellas that are works in progress and unpublished as of yet.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • 914

    The pile of lies has reached critical mass. How’s that Arab spring thing going Barry?

  • Commander_Chico

    OK, I’ll say it: Susan Rice is a harridan that would say anything to make Obama look better.

    Look, the real scandal is that one FBI agent, on the basis of some mildly nasty anonymous emails, was able to get the FBI to read the private emails of Broadwell, Petraeus, Kelley and GEN Allen – all without a warrant!!

    I betcha Jill Kelley regrets her decision to complain – the social climber is socially radioactive now.

    You won’t find “Lady Liberty” or any of the other freedom-lovers here posting on these troubling facts, though. It’s “conservative” to give the state unimpeded powers.

    • GarandFan

      It’s “conservative” to give the state unimpeded powers.

      Then WHY is a LIBERAL administration using them?

    • herddog505

      What the hell are you talking about??? Unless you’re simply trying to distract with a lot of blather about… hell, who KNOWS what you’re talking about?… then you really don’t get what’s been going on here:

      1. Ambassador Stevens warned his superiors, i.e. The Hilldabeast, that all was most definitely NOT well in Libya, and he was in fear for the safety of his mission;

      2. Sure enough, he and three other Americans are dead, killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi;

      3. So far as can be determined, nobody lifted a finger to help them, though you have certainly gone out of your way to assure us that nobody COULD have done anything and, anyway, people get killed in A-stan all that time, so who cares?

      4. Afterwards, the regime, with Rice as their chief spokesperson, told us for DAYS that it was all a spontaneous, irrepressible demonstration by Libyans outraged over a YouTube video (and I note that you’ve blamed – suprise, surprise – The Jooooos). They then made damned sure to lock up the filmmaker on a parole violation. I’m sure that we all sleep better knowing that this dangerous miscreant is off the street;

      5. Now we find that the regime knew within a pretty short time frame that it was likely AQ or AQ-affiliated groups that staged a pre-planned, coordinated attack… just as Ambassador Stevens had warned about before he died;

      6. Mixed in with all this is the fact that Petraeus – who CERTAINLY should have known better – was dipping his wick.

      And the “scandal” is that – somehow – conservatives have… um… well, something about Jill Kelley’s reputation.

      Tell me: do you work for David Axelrod? ‘cuz this sounds like something that would dribble out of his pie hole.

    • jim_m

      ARE YOU FREAKING SEROUS?!?!?!?!

      You care more about the freaking sex scandal than you do that OBAMA LET AMERICANS DIE TO MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD!

      There is not a single lie this admin has not promulgated that you have not promoted. You continue to carry water for people who don’t give a rat’s ass about America or Amricans and you sit here and tell us that you are more worried about whether the FBI was getting warrants than if the obama admin is willing to let those very same Americans die in order to advance his agenda. Who gives a damn if the FBI is making an illegal search when the President is willing to sacrifice not just our freedoms but our lives?

      Time for you to go sober up chico.

      • Carl

        OBAMA LET AMERICANS DIE TO MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD!

        You’re turning into a right wing boor — apparently incapable of reasoned discussion on the day’s events.

        The saddest thing is that now there are only a handful of conservatives who continue to populate the comments section – the thinking majority having been chased off by you, a mentally ill mental midget who blathers nonsense and makes conservatives look like cartoonish loud mouth fatheads who repeat every stupid talking point fed to them by Fox News and the right wing blog machine.

        America soundly rejected Mitt’s campaign of lies and “Fact-checkers be damned” and look where that got him? $2 Billion spent trying to buy an election and Mittens, with his campaign of lies, was still unable to buy enough votes to win.

        Someday Republicans will be invited back into the center of Washington and given a place at the table. And man, you will miss the days of Obama’s first term when he was willing to negotiate and meet in he middle. With the mandate he has now, once the lies and invective and hubris and ad hominem BULLSHIT that people like you spew start up in Washington the door should be slammed on you children and you should be ignored by the WH and anyone else that matters.

        Your kind of nonsense lost the election this year and will lose control of the house in 2014. And I’ll bet you $1000 on that outcome – betting you $1000 American dollars, payable directly to the winner, not a charity to the winner.

        Put your money where your mouth is, Jim the moron. Or are you you just all that hot air?

        • jim_m

          You carry water for obama at every opportunity, you ignorant lackey.

          You claim obama didn’t do this to look good? Prove it dumbass. During the debate he claimed that in his Rose Garden address he said that this was terrorism. 4 days after that address Susan Rice went on 5 talk shows and claimed it was the video. Now obama says that she only repeated what he told her to. So either he lied in the Rose Garden or he lied to her. Oddly enough you believe both stories because you are an ignorant jackass.

          And no I won’t bet anything on something 2 years away. Ask me again next year if you are so confident that midterms will go against the trend of history and go in favor of the party in the White House.

          • Wild_Willie

            Don’t mind the idiot jim. It is a waste of typing energy to address him.
            What I want to know is whose idea was it to use the youtube video as the excuse for two weeks. That is the direct lie. ww

        • Oysteria

          You truly are an idiot. I want the 20 seconds of my life back that it took to read that screed of yours.

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        jim, (sadly) now you’re the one who is jumping the shark. President Obama trusted other federal officials to make correct decisions pertaining to what was happening in Benghazi. Your claim that President Obama let Americans die is unreasonable.

        • Sunny

          Obama was protecting his ass he did not even care if people on the ground die or not. U fool

        • herddog505

          Honestly, we don’t know that. We don’t know what Barry knew, when he knew it, or what he told people to do. Further, he hasn’t exactly acted like an honest citizen in this, has he? It isn’t a case of, “I found that our consulate was under attack. I immediately ordered the Secretary of Defense and other government officials to take every possible action to protect our personnel. Unfortunately, by the time our aircraft arrived over Benghazi, it was too late.”

          Instead, it’s grousing about “Monday-morning quarterbacking” and “It was a videotape” and “the future must not belong to those who insult Mohammed.”

  • Wild_Willie

    Chico’s response? “look over there, there is something shiny.” Our government and investigative bodies can investigate two seperate but important cases at the same time.
    This is very telling. Now we will see how the dem’s keep supporting Obama when their seats are up in two years. Very hard for Obama to circle the wagons for four years like he had before. ww

    • Commander_Chico

      What I am talking about is more of a danger to the republic.

      • Scalia

        But not the topic of this thread.

  • GarandFan

    “Who altered them (talking points) and why?”

    Because “GM is alive and AlQueda is DEAD!” To say otherwise would be to admit error. The Chosen One commits no error! The Chosen One makes no mistakes! Besides, there was an election coming up.

    Was Rice a “useful idiot”? Don’t know. She probably just accepted what she was given. Barry needed a front man (pardon the expression) to go out and cover his ass with a bogus story. You’ll notice that he didn’t use Hillary! Odd, seeing that she is the one in charge of the State Dept and embassies overseas. Oh, that’s right. Billy was out on the stump for Barry at the time. But Hillary! stepped up and “took full responsibility”. Sort of.

    • herddog505

      GarandFanBecause “GM is alive and AlQueda is DEAD!” To say otherwise would be to admit error. The Chosen One commits no error! The Chosen One makes no mistakes! Besides, there was an election coming up.

      Bingo.

      I add that it was probably judged easier to let Stevens and the others die than try to mount a rescue operation that might have turned sour a la Desert One and left Barry holding the bag.

      • GarandFan

        That’s Barry’s management style. When it comes time to make tough, critical decisions in minutes with scant information, Barry kicks the can down the road….and does nothing. It’s safer to ‘lead from behind’.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scott.mabry1 Scott Mabry

    The talking points were altered to prevent tipping off the terrorists that we are onto them. So long, latest idiotic conspiracy theory!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html

    • herddog505

      So claim people in the White House. They, of course, would have NO reason to float such an explanation, would they?

      After the hearings on Friday, administration officials disputed the notion that politics or other motives caused the changes.

      O’ course, that’s not quite what Horndog Petraeus said:

      At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted. [emphasis mine - hd505]

      So, out intelligence chief has no idea who came up with the idea to “avoid tipping off the terrorists”. Yes, he signed off like the Good Soldier Svejk; what else was he to do?

      FInally, something I’ve noticed about terrorists over the years: they WANT it to be known when they’ve committed an outrage. They aren’t common burglars or hired killers who deeply hope that the police never suspect them: their stock in trade (advertizing campaign, if you will) lies in being notoriously successful.
      Let’s face it: the “group” with the most to gain in pretending that this was NOT a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11 is Barry and his gang, not the CIA and not the terrorists.

      • TomInCali

        So claim people in the White House.

        No, so claims Petraeus. Remember when he was your hero, and any slight against him was tantamount to treason?

        • herddog505

          Do read the quotes cited. Now, if you can provide one where Petraeus said, “It was my idea”, please feel free. Here’s the money quote:

          David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups. [emphasis mine - hd505]

          Color me cynical, but this smacks of calling what we did to Khaddaffi “kinetic military action”: it’s a nonsense statement that sounds good to the credulous fools in MiniTru. Now, ask yourself if this would have made sense during any other attack on us in our history. Can you imagine, for example, the Buchanan administration had failed – refused – to identify Southern rebels as behind the attack on Ft. Sumter, or if FDR’s administration had refused to finger the Japanese as behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, for fear of (somehow) “tipping them off”?

          [EDIT]

          I also invite you to ponder why CIA did not consider it important to avoid “tipping off” the bad guys, and why this idea came from some unnamed person in the administration. I realize that CIA is far from infalliable, but one would think that the intelligence pros would have a pretty good handle on what would or would not tip off the guys who attacked us that we know that… um… they attacked us, and would be the first to say what should and shouldn’t be made public to protect their sources and methods.

    • retired.military

      Hey Idiot.

      Exactly what have we done to the attackers in the 2 months since the attack? If we were trying to protect intelligence assets supposedly not letting AQ know we were on to them than what exactly did we do with the intel? Absolutely nothing.

      What a buffoon.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scott.mabry1 Scott Mabry

    deleted double post

  • Plinytherecent

    Talking points can certainly be altered to avoid disclosing sources and methods WITHOUT adding completely erroneous information. In fact, decent tradecraft would avoid the lie (particularly a pathetic one like the Obama administration used) – it’s makes it obvious that you are hiding something. Sources and methods are NOT what was being protected here.

  • manderso

    Keep it up, targeting Rice is pathetic, you are about to lose this one again, big time.
    Irrelevant is who you are.

    • Sunny

      What do u mean by “targeting”? Why wasn’t Hillary Clinton “targeted”? Because she failed on the job , and lives were lost and the White House tried to come forward with changing stories.

      If u are in her shoes and u can’t give a clear account then u are also responsible ; u fool.

      Being accountable to your job is not being “targeted” u low life dog

    • Oysteria

      You pop in here and make some ignorant comment like this when instead, you should be defending Rice against her bosses, not us. If I were Rice I’d be livid for being given such bad information to spout off on multiple national TV shows. We’re not besmirching her reputation. Her bosses are absolutely destroying her chances of ever gaining higher employment – and then they have the nerve to try and protect her from their own machinations.
      Honestly, the quality of trolls here has not improved one iota over the nearly 10 years I’ve been reading this blog.

  • Pingback: Non-Braking News 11/18/12 | Beef Blogonoff