Bombshell: Petraeus to tell Congress that he knew “almost immediately” Benghazi was work of terrorists; Update: Petraeus, King dispute earlier testimony

posted at 8:51 am on November 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I mentioned yesterday that the sudden CBS scoop that got them Susan Rice’s talking points from the CIA seemed a little too coincidental — and too self-serving — to be the full story. This morning, CNN answers with a scoop of its own before former CIA Director David Petraeus briefs a Senate committee on what he knows about the Benghazi debacle. Not only did Petraeus conclude “almost immediately” that the attack on the consulate was a well-planned terrorist attack, the talking points published by CBS didn’t come from Petraeus. According to CNN, Petraeus will tell the Senate committee that those talking points “came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points”:

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, “[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points,” Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn’t accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

“When he looks at what Susan Rice said,” CNN reports, “here is what Petraeus’s take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.”

If this is what Petraeus tells the Senate committee, he’ll tell the House committee the same thing. Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

Update: Petraeus testified for 90 minutes to the House committee first (not the Senate as I wrote above), of which the panel spent “ten seconds” on his affair with Paula Broadwell, according to Rep. Peter King.  However, King and Petraeus had a dispute about his initial briefing to Congress, which turned at least contentious:

King said that Petraeus maintained that he said early on that the ambush was a result of terrorism, but King added that he remembered Petraeus and the Obama administration downplaying the role of an al Qaeda affiliate in the attack in the days after Stevens was killed. The administration initially said the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against a video that lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.

“That is not my recollection” of what Petraeus initially said, King said today.

The congressman suggested that pressing Petraeus was awkward at times.

“It’s a lot easier when you dislike the guy,” King said.

Petraeus moved from that hearing to the Senate Intelligence Committee for more testimony.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

BTW, I hate it when that dern CNN video starts playing every time the page is refreshed.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

This just keeps getting dumber and dumber. A terrorist group attacked over a movie? That’s what some at CIA thought initially? Come on, if this is true, the CIA is politicized.

BKeyser on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

that’s why I keep the sound off. That, and the pop-up ads.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Difference is that the Liberal Media will go after a Republican President, but cover for a Democrat one.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Difference now is the internet.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM


Obama:
“I said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning….I said so in the Rose Garden”…
………….”back me up Crowley…..could you say that louder please!!”


….so then I went on other talk shows and sent Susan Rice out to say “it’s the video”…….

Other intelligence sources….the CIA….The leader of Libya….even Obama himself claims he said it was a terrorist attack….even the video shows a coordinated attack by terrorist…. yet President “I’ve defeated al-qaeda” Obama ran out with his bullsh!t narrative about a video and we are supposed the believe that he has been straight up with the American people about the debacle in Benghazi.

Obama lies so much that the press and his idiot followers don’t know what to defend or how.This second term is going to be nothing but Obama having to spin and deal with his failed policies…lies…and corruption.

Baxter Greene on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Okay, but why did Petraeus himself say it was the video?

ninjapirate on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

My thoughts: Because Obama was holding the affair over his head.

Petraeus himself admitted to the affair (later) freeing himself from The Won’s blackmail/extortion attempt.

Maybe honor and duty won out too late, but they still won out.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Therefore, it is near certain that she knows the truth and that she also has been lying. That entire administration is a putrid cauldron of lies, deception and crookedness.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 9:31 AM

rplat,

Need I remind you that the rat-eared-wonder (REW) was not the only one who openly lied in the Rose Garden on 9/12? Not the only one on that $19K worth of ads appealing on Muslim animals to stand down? That it employees of her department that admitted they watched the attacks in real time?

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS AS BIG A LIAR AS SUSAN RICE OR THE REW!

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I’m stocking up on Twinkies and heading down to the bomb shelter

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Good idea considering that Hostess is closing down everything because their unions wouldn’t budge to try and keep the business alive. Twinkies no more, it’s a sad day in cream-filled junk food land.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

diogenes on November 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Got me by a minute. But, you are correct.
How did 20+ reports pop up so fast with the wrong info, and not one with the right info. Eventhough an actual claim for the attack was posted ?

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Most of you folks probably weren’t alive or aware of Watergate when it was unfolding.

The MSM hated Nixon and desperately wanted to take him down. Nixon was a bitter clinging “rube” to them — not one of the hip, enlightened, East Coast elites (as they like to think of themselves). Nixon didn’t go to an Ivy League college, had a Quaker background, served in the Navy, first came to the attention of the nation when he was in Congress attacking commies (the Alger Hiss case), and had been Eisenhower’s running mate. Nixon was everything the MSM despised (and still despises).

Barry Obama is the embodiment of everything the MSM worships: racial politics, the Ivy League, Muslim appeasement, anti-American globalism, etc. They will never go after Obama the way they went after Nixon. Obama is their messiah; Nixon was the anti-Christ.

AZCoyote on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Vicnce Foster remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Okay, but why did Petraeus himself say it was the video?

ninjapirate on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

He was part of the “team” and he lied like the rest of them.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

That’s what got me from the get-go. Muslim Terroists don’t have toilet paper, but they watch Youtube?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Difference now is the internet.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

And look how the Internet did wonders from 2006-present.

The Internet is so fragmented that it pales to comparison to Candy Crowley cheerleading for Obama in front of 66 million+ viewers.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Maybe Hillary should just stay in Australia and drink more wine.

Electrongod on November 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Maybe we can send her back on a transport ship?

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

This just keeps getting dumber and dumber. A terrorist group attacked over a movie? That’s what some at CIA thought initially? Come on, if this is true, the CIA is politicized.

BKeyser on November 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And they did just coincidentally on the anniversary of 9/11. And coincidentally just a week after Obama spent several days beating his chest and claiming he has virtually destroyed Al Qaeda.

I very much doubt many people in the CIA are that dumb.

farsighted on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I’m stocking up on Twinkies and heading down to the bomb shelter

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Better hurry…

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/16/hostess-brands-moves-to-wind-down-operations-sell-assets/?test=latestnews

psrch on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Barry Obama is the embodiment of everything the MSM worships: racial politics, the Ivy League, Muslim appeasement, anti-American globalism, etc. They will never go after Obama the way they went after Nixon. Obama is their messiah; Nixon was the anti-Christ.

AZCoyote on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Yup. Starve the Liberal Media Beast.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Breaking News: CNN viewers figure out what Fox viewers knew two months ago

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Most of you folks probably weren’t alive or aware of Watergate when it was unfolding.

All the Democratic complaints about the Republicans pursuing the truth about Benghazi?

Exactly mirror the Republican complaints about Democratic partisanship at the time.

Bravo for Life’s little ironies.

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I was 9 and I remember exactly where I was. We were on vacation and my father pulled me out of the pool and marched me to the room and sat me in front of the TV and made me watch Nixon resign. He said it was a disgrace and he had hope that I would never have to witness such a thing again.

I come from a family of southern conservative democrats that were hawks. I am now a republican but to let you know his thinking…

My father ended his speech with, in all honesty it should have been Johnson resigning, the crap he pulled makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

Tilly on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I don’t care anymore what they called it and when. I want answers to who made the call to not send help to those dying in Bengazi.

Everything else is window dressing without that answer.

SteveInRTP on November 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I post this question in all honesty-

Is there anybody who really believed (at any point) that the attack at Benghazi was related to a YouTube video nobody had ever seen? For that matter, did anybody really believe that the other embassy attacks by groups of Muslim animals was related to that video?

It was not a plausible story from the outset which is why Susan Rice’s lies are all the more reprehensible. She did it to be a “team player” but the reality is that as Ambassador to the UN she should have said that she didn’t have anything to add about the Benghazi attack because it isn’t part of her portfolio.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

As I have always understood it, in Egypt, the video was aired on television the day before the attack on the embassy in that country and Zawahiri’s brother called for retribution on US for the video and to get the Blind Sheik released.

When the “coincidental” attack on the Benghazi consulate and annex occurred almost immediately thereafter, I think the first decision at the top level (Obama, ValJar, whoever) was “We don’t have to do anything to help in Benghazi because we can just blame it on the video.”. There were probably sighs of relief at that time in the White House because they figured they could just sell that story with the media’s help. And they did a good job of it for long enough to get Obeyme re-elected.

Greyledge Gal on November 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Maybe honor and duty won out too late, but they still won out.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I’d suggest it is too early to make that prognosis. But, this could well be the turning point that ferrets out more of the truth than has been made public.

IMO the following key questions are still outstanding.

What was the CIA doing in Benghazi and what was Ambassador Stevens doing there on the night of 9/11? Why did Stevens meet with the Turkish ambassador?

Was the CIA detaining individuals at their facility?

Who exactly was monitoring the attacks in DC? Where was the President? Was there a call to “stand down” and if so, who made it. If it was made, was it the President to make the call and, if not, why not?

Why did the President and SecState lie on the morning of 9/12? Why did the administration continue to compound the lies for weeks to include Susan Rice’s appearances, an ad campaign to the Muslim world, and a UN speech?

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Well, duh! Attack on our ambassador on 9/11. Only a donk but be so oblivious not to realize it.

Blake on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

That’s what got me from the get-go. Muslim Terroists don’t have toilet paper, but they watch Youtube?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM

It was translated and shown on Egyptian television, a fact that continues to be wilfully ignored by most commenters here.

bileduct on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Via politico chambliss doesn’t say rice lied… .feels like hes back pedaling to appease the lsm

Gop cave?

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

I said it just the other day, say hello to President Joseph Robinette Biden….Lord help us all.

NY Conservative on November 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

*Benghazi More. Coffee. Please.

SteveInRTP on November 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Vicnce Foster remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

His brother Vince is unavailable too.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

If we disregard Rice for a moment, Obama still has to account for what he said on the View, Letterman, and to the U.N. He was still singing that song. He doesn’t get updates? Maybe they were in the daily intell briefings he skipped….which creates another point of vulnerability.:)

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Good point. Rice should not be allowed distract from Obama’s culpability, and Jarrett/Axelrod’s.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I said it just the other day, say hello to President Joseph Robinette Biden….Lord help us all.

NY Conservative on November 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

I could live with that.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I still believe that Obama was watching this happen in the Situation Room, in real time. And, then, he went to bed.

Chilling.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Agree. Some have said that this was a botched operation; Obama was supposed to look like a hero on 9/11 and it backfired. I put NOTHING past these people. Disgusting.

Key West Reader on November 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I could live with that.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Are you sure?

“Hey! What’s this red button for?”

-Mr. President! NOOOOO!”

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I was 9 and I remember exactly where I was. We were on vacation and my father pulled me out of the pool and marched me to the room and sat me in front of the TV and made me watch Nixon resign. He said it was a disgrace and he had hope that I would never have to witness such a thing again.

Tilly on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I was 10. We lived near Andrews AFB at the time and I remember seeing the plane carrying Nixon back to California fly over the house. And yes, the sense of the nation was that this was a national disgrace. Gerald Ford, who had defended Nixon for a very long time privately told Nixon how disappointed he was in the man.

But, you know what, all of that seems small stuff in comparison to what this administration did. Nixon didn’t watch the break-in in real time. Nobody died at the Watergate.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Yeah, I agree. That’s why I prefaced my whole statement with ‘my thoughts’.

I WANT Petraeus to come down on the side of honor and dignity. I WANT to believe that he’s a good man who was – like all people – weak for a time, and is attempting to atone for that now.

Of course, as a Penn State alum, I didn’t WANT Paterno to have been responsible in any way, shape or form for Sandvsky, but he was, so what I want doesn’t really count for much.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I was 9 and I remember exactly where I was. We were on vacation and my father pulled me out of the pool and marched me to the room and sat me in front of the TV and made me watch Nixon resign. He said it was a disgrace and he had hope that I would never have to witness such a thing again.

I come from a family of southern conservative democrats that were hawks. I am now a republican but to let you know his thinking…

My father ended his speech with, in all honesty it should have been Johnson resigning, the crap he pulled makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

Tilly on November 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Wow, Tilly, you only got in at the end. My great-aunt lived with us. She was a Democrat living with the enemy. :) Anyhoo, every day when I came home from school, we watched the Watergate hearings. Fun parts included all the hoo-ha about poor old Martha Mitchell.

I was 12 when Nixon resigned. My father never believed he’d done anything worse than Kennedy or Johnson — it was just that the press despised him. Nixon’s “My Six Crises” stayed on prominent display on the living room bookshelf until I packed up the house after both my parents passed on.

Greyledge Gal on November 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I could live with that.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So could I. It would be a weakened administration no matter what.

The fun thing to speculate about is this. If Biden becomes President, who do you suppose he’d pick as VP? Certainly not Hillary Clinton but who?

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I was 10. We lived near Andrews AFB at the time and I remember seeing the plane carrying Nixon back to California fly over the house. And yes, the sense of the nation was that this was a national disgrace. Gerald Ford, who had defended Nixon for a very long time privately told Nixon how disappointed he was in the man.

But, you know what, all of that seems small stuff in comparison to what this administration did. Nixon didn’t watch the break-in in real time. Nobody died at the Watergate.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I was in my 20′s and campaigned for him twice. Danced at both inaugurals. Broke my heart.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Fun parts included all the hoo-ha about poor old Martha Mitchell.

Greyledge Gal on November 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Martha definitely was pure entertainment.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Slightly OT – Anonymous hack Israeli fund management website and pledge their support for Palestinians .

EnglishRogue on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I said it just the other day, say hello to President Joseph Robinette Biden….Lord help us all.

NY Conservative on November 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

And if he’s in on it too, we’ll have President Boehner.

Greyledge Gal on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The fun thing to speculate about is this. If Biden becomes President, who do you suppose he’d pick as VP? Certainly not Hillary Clinton but who?

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Maxine Waters.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Wonder if Romney is rethinking his prevent defense strategy in the third debate? He gave Obama a pass on Benghazi. Many of us were furious. He deserved to lose.

Yeah, so was Nixon in 1972 in a 49-state landslide. A lot of good that did him when the Watergate scandal blew up.
Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

One letter (R) is not like the other (D).

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

He played it safe after the media massacred him after his press conference on the Cairo Embassy statement. He would have won if so many conservatives had not sat it out. I’m furious with morons who think it’s easy to defeat an incumbent president who has the unqualified support of the media and entertainment industry.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

The fun thing to speculate about is this. If Biden becomes President, who do you suppose he’d pick as VP? Certainly not Hillary Clinton but who?

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Nanzi Pelozi

Key West Reader on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

His brother Vince is unavailable too.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Jodi is still around.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Just a few reminders about Cairo and the video:

* On the 4th of September, 2012, Egyptian deputy Interior Minister, General Sami Sidhom, received a letter warning that Sinai- and Gaza-based Global Jihad cells were planning attacks on the American and Israel embassies in Cairo. Copies of the letter were sent to all Egyptian security sector. Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the 8th of September, 2012, the Egyptian website, El Fagr, posted a statement by Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya wherein they threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground. Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the 9th of September, 2012, the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masry Al-Youm (Egypt Independent) reported that it had received a copy of the “top secret” letter, which stated that Egypt’s General Intelligence Service had notified the ministry’s national security body that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo. Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the 9th of September, 2012, the US State Department had credible information that American missions may be targeted in Cairo and Benghazi; yet, no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement are to be severely restricted. None of this credible and actionable information concerned the video.

* On the 10th of September, 2012, the day before the attack, Raymond Ibrahim at PJMedia.com reported (and I read it on the 10th) the threat and linked to the site. He also translated the post from El Fagr:

“The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

Not a single word was made about the video.

* On the MORNING OF THE 11th of September, 2012, The Jerusalem Post reported that Egypt’s General Intelligence Service had warned that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo. Not a single word was made about the video.

The fact is that the Cairo protest was planned BEFORE the part of the video was aired on Egyptian television the Saturday before the protest. The true reason for the protest was NOT the video. It was ALWAYS the demand for the immediate release of the Blind Sheikh. The Egyptian government was aware of this. The Arabic press was aware of this. The Israeli government was aware of this. The Israeli press was aware of this. PJMedia.com was aware of this. I, certainly no member of the intelligence community, knew it before the protest. The US government knew or should have known it.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Obama lied people died is undeniably true.

8 weight on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Nanzi Pelozi

Key West Reader on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Jill Kelly

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Maybe honor and duty won out too late, but they still won out.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Too bad it couldn’t have won out 2 freaking days earlier.

cptacek on November 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

WANT Petraeus to come down on the side of honor and dignity. I WANT to believe that he’s a good man who was – like all people – weak for a time, and is attempting to atone for that now.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

That would be a nice outcome but I’ll settle for testimony so damning that the Dems in Congress will have no choice but to agree with the idea of setting up a select committee to investigate.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

“Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.”

Expect immediate indifference from an electorate that doesn’t give a $hit if Americans die or if their President & his lackeys lie through their teeth.

In other news: Candy Crowley is what gravy would look like if it were sold in 300lb clear plastic bags topped with real human hair.

SAMinVA on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

You throw enough people under the bus, and sooner or later, somebody is bound to gum up the works.

mintycrys on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

All the Democratic complaints about the Republicans pursuing the truth about Benghazi?

Exactly mirror the Republican complaints about Democratic partisanship at the time.

Bravo for Life’s little ironies.

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Bull. Sen Howard Baker R.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Expect immediate demands for Obama administration officials to testify on how Susan Rice got those talking points, who crafted them, and for what purpose.

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Just to be clear:

The protest at the Cairo Embassy wasn’t a “spontaneous protest about a youtube video” either.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Wrong. She was sent out to lie to the American people. That is not an inconsequential thing.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Amb. Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smtih would disagree with you.

…If they could.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Obama lied people died is undeniably true.

8 weight on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

No, it’s “People Died. Obama Lied.”

Key West Reader on November 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Seriously, I blame my new Apple keyboard. Not because it’s really its fault, but I did have my morning cup of coffee already, and I usually have that excuse handy otherwise.

Ed Morrissey on November 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

.
APPLe wil betray you!

Not true! Nobody died because of Watergate. Nixon was unaware of the actual crime.

In the Benghazi massacre, the President was involved from the beginning. That alone puts the Democrat complaints into a different context. They are abetting a criminal and covering up a crime.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

.
While I agree with your overall point … unless they have specific knowledge a crime was committed, the Democrats crying, “Partisan attacks!” are doing nothing more than proving Einstein’s point that genius has limits while stupidity does not.

Also, my original comment was schadenfreude … as opposed to a Schadenfreude comment. ;->

I’m stocking up on Twinkies and heading down to the bomb shelter

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Some people are stocking 5.56 rounds and magazines, other people are stocking Twinkies.

Either way, we all end up in the bomb shelter.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

.
Point of order!

Twinkies are to be stockpiled for the Zombie Apocalypse.

5.56 should be stockpiled for all apocalypses.

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Obama lied, four people died.

The lies were necessary because??? Because the American people would gather pitchforks and torches should they be confronted with the truth over affairs such as Fast and Furious, gun-running into Libya , Syria… relationships with the Brotherhood, Al-Qaida… and on and on.

There core is rotten, hidden from the American public with the aid of a complicit corporate media.

I believe this is a turning point – when the majority of Americans are confronted with the fact that their media cannot be trusted any more than their government.

I hope the General fully removes the gloves, and lays it out in undeniable ‘Living Color’.

shaken on November 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

In other news: Candy Crowley is what gravy would look like if it were sold in 300lb clear plastic bags topped with real human hair.

SAMinVA on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Lololol!
/Snork

Key West Reader on November 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I’m furious with morons who think it’s easy to defeat an incumbent president who has the unqualified support of the media and entertainment industry.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Just about impossible to do that.

sentinelrules on November 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Maybe in your world. dipsh!t.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

In other news: Candy Crowley is what gravy would look like if it were sold in 300lb clear plastic bags topped with real human hair.

SAMinVA on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

ROFL

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I’m furious with morons who think it’s easy to defeat an incumbent president who has the unqualified support of the media and entertainment industry.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Your concern has been noted.

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Bull. Sen Howard Baker R.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

.
No, early in the proceedings Senator Howard Baker acted as a brake on the scope of the investigation.

He felt it was a partisan hack job initially.

When they started turning over rocks and the slugs started crawling back towards the White House … he got pi$$ed off for the White House having played him for a chump and went for the jugular.

I watched ALL of the hearings back in the day.

PolAgnostic on November 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Well, the President of the United States ordering that Americans should be left to die seems to be of consequence.

Maybe you guys don’t care about that. Maybe you think those four men were just the first step to the 25 million Americans you guys want to have killed.

Washington Nearsider on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

In other news: Candy Crowley is what gravy would look like if it were sold in 300lb clear plastic bags topped with real human hair.

SAMinVA on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I just vomited a little bit in my mouth. Ugh.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Romney lost.

We will keep fighting.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Oh! I think this has the potential to bring this administration to a standstill if not completely down. And it is that fact that have noisome trolls like you scared the most.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Just read this and thought about our conversation last night:

FLASHER RUNS AWAY AFTER WOMAN WHIPS OUT GUN…

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Lsm continues to defend dear leader and blaming the cia on the memo ..

One gop talking head asks the msdnc lib…why does dear leader call it a terrorist attack one day but gives rice the talking point about a video…. the lib calls it semantics

I think we have our official talking point of the day….

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Well done. Thanks for that.

Point of order!

Twinkies are to be stockpiled for the Zombie Apocalypse.

Can’t do it. Like Bishop said, Woody Harrelson done got the last ‘un.

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

even if this report is true, who cares? completely inconsequential.

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Obama has you right where he wants you. In disbelief of the truth.

HOW CAN YOU EVEN ADMIT THAT YOU CARE NOT FOR THE TRUTH ?

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

It sounds like; petraeus is falling on his sword….

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

sesquipedalian on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

A President with no regard for the safety of his citizens and the security of his own nation is of great consequence. Perhaps if it were a member of your own family who died as the result of the inaction and indifference of this soulless, inhuman punk in the White House you would feel differently.

But those of us with any experience reading these threads already knows you’re a mindless, monosyllabic moron.

Right Mover on November 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

According to CBS…not a bombshell.

The original CIA talking points regarding the attack on Benghazi clearly attributed the incident to al Qaeda affiliates, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter King said this morning after a closed door briefing with former CIA Director David Petraeus. After being vetted by several different agencies, however, that emphasis was removed.

“The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out,” King said. Originally, he said, they were “much more specific on al Qaeda involvement.”

Furthermore, King said that Petraeus insisted today that he was clear with Congress from the start that the event was a terrorist attack.

“I told him… I had a very different recollection of that,” King said, noting that in the days following the Sept. 11 attack, Obama administration officials called the event a spontaneous uprising spurred by backlash against an anti-Muslim video.

“I pointed out the following week when [National Counterterrorism Center director] Matt Olsen said it was a terrorist attack, it made headlines,” King said. “I told him I honestly disagree with his recollection.”

Petraeus briefed lawmakers on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, in which four Americans were killed. At that time, King said, Petraeus attributed the attack in part to the backlash against the video, “based on reports they were getting at the time.”

However, King added, intelligence officials “also at the time — prior to Sept. 14 — also had information there was involvement of al Qaeda affiliates, and that was not made clear in their presentation.”

King said the hearing was “cordial” and that Petraeus’ recent resignation, prompted by his extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell, was only briefly addressed at the beginning of the hearing.

It was “made clear at the start that would not be the focus of the questioning,” King said.

Now the question becomes…why did the talking points change before final release?

weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Here’s the thing. Owe post election admits that HE gave Susan Rice the talking points. Susan Rice gets no sympathy from me since if she’s smart enough to hold her UN position then she was smart enough to KNOW it was a lie – we all did.

Yes, Petraeus sang the company song and lost all respect I had for him. I believe he did so in an attempt to save his own butt. It was dishonorable to the people he served.

No question Hillary Clinton ducked and hid on this. She also knew the truth and allowed lies to be told. Leon Panetta is right behind her.

So we have at least 5 people who should all lose their jobs: Owe, Rice, Panetta, Petraeus, and Clinton. They all perpetrated a lie to We the People.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

With 20-20 hind-sight Petraeus can say he knew (more likely highly suspected on a personal level) the attack was a planned terrorist effort, but that personal belief on his part was not corroborated as official by his organization, nor by Sec.Def or Administration officials.

>>>

Let us supply some critical thinking. (Reposted from the other thread).

We must first remember the goal of Psi-Ops which is to make the unplausible seem plausible and this is accomplished my making the plausible seem unplausible.

What the CIA reported initially was a demonstration fueled by the Egyptian demonstration and whatever fueled that demonstration. Nothing in the CIA report mentions the silly video in question. This is what Petraeus reported to congress and the truth as far as he knew it.

Somewhere between the CIA and Rice the issue of the video was added and Rice reported that. Or more correctly, parroted it, but it is the truth as she knew it.

What we found out (which the CIA didn’t initially believe themselves) is that the attack was orchestrated by a powerful terrorist group for a very specific purpose. Question here is, why did the CIA not know this right from the start? Either they are dumb and misread the warnings, or they faked themselves out with their own Psi-Ops, assuming this kind of terrorist attack so implausible that they couldn’t believe it when they saw it.

Now… we have so much implausible arm-chair generalling going on that nobody can tell what is plausible or implausbile, and filling in the details with their imaginations.

Here is the most plausible story:

The CIA didn’t know or didn’t realize the attack was an orchestrated terrorist attack and that is why they didn’t ask for or send in backup.

The cover-up is the government, Administration, Sec.Def., CIA, covering up the fact that they were totally fooled (and incompetent) in mistaking this coordinated attack as a mere political demonstration.

What we don’t know is where Rice got the information that this was all caused by the silly video. So, lets look back at what I said about Psi-Ops.

The most logically implausible story is the one Rice told about the video being the cause, but emotionally it is the story everyone wants to accept as plausible.

What is most plausible is the CIA and government intel where simply caught by surprise and failed to properly react. Nobody wants to believe our intel community could be this incompetent so we are taking this simple explanation as implausible, when logically it is the only version of events that makes any logical sense.

Furthermore, Petraeus is an honorable military officer, he would not resign his post over an intel kerfluffle. Nobody asked him to resign or challenged him to resign. His resignation is purely based on getting caught with his pants down, a direct violation of his own personal honor code.

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it, and thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I was 10. We lived near Andrews AFB at the time and I remember seeing the plane carrying Nixon back to California fly over the house. And yes, the sense of the nation was that this was a national disgrace. Gerald Ford, who had defended Nixon for a very long time privately told Nixon how disappointed he was in the man.

But, you know what, all of that seems small stuff in comparison to what this administration did. Nixon didn’t watch the break-in in real time. Nobody died at the Watergate.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I agree totally and it started with the Clarence Thomas hearings and went down hill from there. I am glad my father, grandfather and great-uncle are not alive to have to witness this, even though the dept situation they laid out like they had a crystal ball…

Then again Helen Keller could have seen that one, so no great insight there…

This is just disgraceful beyond any words…

Tilly on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

One gop talking head asks the msdnc lib…why does dear leader call it a terrorist attack one day but gives rice the talking point about a video…. the lib calls it semantics

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

So does semantics extend to calling it a result of a video on 9/12 but then, during the second debate, claiming that he always called it a terrorist act?

IMO the American people are smart enough to understand where the truth lies. We just need to scream liar enough that the lsm has to back off enough to throw the administration into defense mode. Petraeus’ testimony helps in that regard which is why the lsm is out there engaging in character assassination this morning. They understand how close we are to toppling this administration (or at least bringing it to a standstill).

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I’m furious with morons who think it’s easy to defeat an incumbent president who has the unqualified support of the media and entertainment industry.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I don’t know who you hang around, but you need new friends. About 90% of HA commenters (excluding trolls) knew defeating Obama would be challenging with the Lap Dog Media.

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Hmmm, the fact that the third email from Libya to the State Department TOLD them it was an al Qaeda group should weigh in the argument somewhere.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

King said that Petraeus maintained that he said early on that the ambush was a result of terrorism, but King added that he remembered Petraeus and the Obama administration downplaying the role of an al Qaeda affiliate in the attack in the days after Stevens was killed. The administration initially said the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against a video that lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.

“That is not my recollection” of what Petraeus initially said, King said today.

Are you kidding me? Do they not have the video of Patraeus’ testimony? Perhaps they could play it back for Patraeus and help his foggy memory. What a bunch of freakin’ morons.

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Does Congressman King have to rely on his memory…? Let’s go to the transcript!

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

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.”

So now we know what obambi meant when he said “al qaeda has been taken out”. He meant taken out of the report.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it, and thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

… and probably the only competent official in this whole debacle will be the one taking the blame for it, and the fall for it. Sorry Petraeus but you’re not the first person that Obama has thrown under the bus.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Apparently Petraeus has just testified to the House that he and the CIA knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack and related specifically to Al Qaeda, and that the Talking Points memo he and the CIA wrote included these details.

He then testified that the final version of these talking points had these facts removed. He had no idea who removed them. And had no idea who provided that altered Talking Points memo to Rice.

In other words, he’s throwing it all back to the White House.

What will Obama do? It’s becoming obvious that the WH tried to control the narrative around Benghazi, flinging four people to their death, as their narrative rejects the existence of terrorism. Their attempt to put causality on America, via an American made video, failed as the facts came out that showed terrorist attacks in the previous months, and warnings from both Libya and Egypt of terrorist plans to attack US embassies on Sept 11.

The WH then tried to implicate the CIA; the CIA is fighting back. Obama has already destroyed Petraeus in this attempt, by using the Chicago tactic of ‘dirt on your hands and so your mouth can’t tell the truth’ against Petraeus. That didn’t work.

Then, Obama has begun his confrontational stance of: If you attack Rice, you attack me. And daring the nation to attack him. He’s relying on his lifelong tactic of aggressive rebuttal, using race and other issues, to prevent his having to deal with facts.

Oh, and Obama is Taking the Fifth, ie, he is claiming that he can’t answer any questions because ‘it’s all under investigation’.

Will he get away with these lies, his destruction of the CIA, and his actually allowing four Americans to be massacred – all for the sake of His Narrative of Conquering Al Qaeda?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it, and thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Nice spin you got there. Too bad it is so full of holes. But, then again, so is Ambassador Stevens for all we know.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Mea Culpa, I gave the America people more credit than was due. I guess I didn’t factor in the “freebies” with as much weight as they cultivated.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Phew! Tammy Bruce, subbing for Laura Ingraham, is talking about Petraeus and jeepers, is she ever livid over it.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Will he get away with these lies, his destruction of the CIA, and his actually allowing four Americans to be massacred – all for the sake of His Narrative of Conquering Al Qaeda?

Nah Petraeus did it to himself.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I don’t know happy. Nomad they voted for another. 4 years of the won….they’ll believe the lib lies…you’re right the gop talking heads need to scream liar to their face

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Nice spin you got there. Too bad it is so full of holes. But, then again, so is Ambassador Stevens for all we know.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Have you noticed all the new concern trolls out the past few days?

katy the mean old lady on November 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

IMO the American people are smart enough to understand where the truth lies.

50.8 % of the electorate just voted for another four years of “leadership” from a celebrity sociopath who hates America and is hellbent on its destruction.

Let’s not overestimate the intelligence of the American people.

Right Mover on November 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

all for the sake of His Narrative of Conquering Al Qaeda?

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

“al qaeda has been taken out……………………of the report.”

And 51% of Americans wonder if they can get some free sh!t from this Al Kaida guy, if so , they want to vote for Al Kaida.

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Question: Since the FBI interviewed Broadwell in September, she surely had to have told Petraeus. So why didn’t Mr. honorable resign then? Better yet, why didn’t Mr. Honorable resign in July when he ended the affair? Or in October when HE was interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. Honorable is not nearly as honorable as we all thought. For further reference read the story of him setting up friend Jill as honorary consul to South Korea so she could ask $80 million for brokering a deal.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

So where are the witnesses from the 30 plus who were rescued? Maybe they could clear up the “asked for help” and “standown” questions. With the earlier attacks in Epypt and other countries and the two previous attacks in Benghazi with it being 9-11, there should have been an alert. There was more warning of the possibilities than we had in Iran.

amr on November 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Etab, the lsm is not telling this at all….still placing all the blame on the cia

Cover up by the lsm big time

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

VegasRick on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Clever! Thanks.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4