Petraeus: The CIA’s initial talking points about Benghazi mentioned Al Qaeda — but the reference was removed

posted at 4:28 pm on November 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

The (former) director of the CIA doesn’t know why the CIA’s finalized talking points omitted a key detail?

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed…

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

Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.”

The obvious suspicion is that the White House or some other political actor up the food chain expunged the Al Qaeda reference because it was inconvenient to the Foreign Policy President’s “I destroyed Al Qaeda” reelection narrative. But Petraeus is no longer beholden to the administration. If that’s what happened, or if it’s what he suspected might have happened, why didn’t he say so today? His reputation had already taken a hit because of the bad early intel from the CIA on Benghazi before anyone knew who Paula Broadwell was. If that intel was actually the product of interference from political forces, he has every reason to clear his name by saying so. Instead, it sounds like he acknowleged today that the CIA did indeed ultimately approve the talking points Rice used that omitted the reference to Al Qaeda. Er, why’d they do that? If someone in a political office was pressuring the CIA to change the document, Petraeus would surely know about it, no?

Meanwhile, in a separate House Intel Committee briefing with DNI James Clapper and acting CIA Director Mike Morell:

Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized [the talking points the White House initially relief on]. And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.

The three biggest names in American intelligence still haven’t been able to figure out who removed a key part of an intel finding that’s been hotly disputed in public for two months? That’s like Obama needing an investigation to find out what he did or didn’t order the military to do to rescue Americans pinned down at the CIA annex on the night of the attack. How hard would it be to find this out? Presumably the CIA uses the same basic word processing programs as every other organization; go back through the saved drafts and figure out where the reference to Al Qaeda mysteriously disappeared.

What’s doubly curious about all this is that any of these guys could have simply said, “Well, there were early signs of Al Qaeda involvement but nothing firm enough at the time to warrant inclusion in a statement to the public.” That’s arguably true: Eli Lake reported back on October 1 that U.S. intelligence had intercepted communications during and after the attack between people in Ansar al-Sharia and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. That’s strong evidence of coordination but maybe not a smoking gun. Since then, U.S. officials have gotten firmer about AQIM’s involvement; there was even a report a few weeks ago about jihadis from Al Qaeda in Iraq possibly being involved. My point, though, is that neither Petraeus, Clapper, nor Morell appears to be defending the agency on grounds that the early intel wasn’t ripe enough yet. It sounds from King and Fox’s report like they’re kinda sorta conceding that, yeah, maybe the Al Qaeda reference shouldn’t have been removed. Petraeus, in fact, seems to have taken the attitude this morning that the attack was obviously terrorism from the get-go. Or maybe all of this is just King’s/Fox’s interpretation of more complex answers they gave? This is why public hearings would be useful.

Update:Daniel Halper at the Standard. Intelligence sources were whispering about the Al Qaeda omission to Stephen Hayes weeks ago. That’s how suspicious they were of it:

One thing that has troubled both intelligence officials and those on Capitol Hill as they have evaluated the administration’s early response to the attacks is what appears to be an effort to write al Qaeda out of the story. For example, the talking points first reported by Lake, include this sentence: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” But according to several officials familiar with the original assessment from which the talking points were derived, the U.S. intelligence community had reported the fact that these were extremists with ties to al Qaeda. That key part was omitted.


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

Petraeus: …and behind this attack was al Qae… err… Franken! Wait, no, that’s not right! Can I take a mulligan?

Stoic Patriot on November 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM

There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark . . .

Imrahil on November 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM

If that’s what happened, or if it’s what he suspected might have happened, why didn’t he say so today?

Holder/CIA investigation, announced after he said he’d testify, threats…

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Cleary, this is Bush’s fault.
Who is John Galt?
And Bishop.

newtopia on November 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM

we will get everything we deserve.

rob verdi on November 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You know, I’m beginning to suspect that this administration might lie once in a while.

The Rogue Tomato on November 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Obama finalized the Rice talking points.

In his presser, in a moment of utmost arrogance, he also toasted her.

The buck stops with him. She is a mere arrogant potentate dictator loving fool. They both deserve each other.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The three biggest names in American intelligence still haven’t been able to figure out who removed a key part of an intel finding that’s been hotly disputed in public for two months?

Who removed a key part of an intel finding?
The same person who removed security for the Ambassador in Libya, and then refused to give him any security even though he was begging for it ?

burrata on November 16, 2012 at 4:36 PM

While I understand the attraction to this sex scandal deal, it’s a distraction from the much bigger issue of voter fraud.

19,650 to 0 in a set of precincts in Cleveland. Mitt Romney didn’t get a single vote. Not from shaky-handed old black man. Not from some rebel black kid wanting to show up his moma. Not from any black conservatives. Not a single vote.

Yet HotAir and other right media are completely ignoring the election results.

Voter fraud is of far greater importance than some generals having sex with some book authors and socialites.

ericdondero on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The CIA has NO business investigating itself. The FBI should do it.

Holder told Obama a few minutes after he knew about the affair. NO one should believe a single word from any of the two men, er.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

That’s like Obama needing an investigation to find out what he did or didn’t order the military to do to rescue Americans pinned down at the CIA annex on the night of the attack. How hard would it be to find this out?

BTW, do we even know who is conducting this investigation?

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

NO one knows who finalized the talking points but his initials are B.H.O.

WashingtonsWake on November 16, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Yeah, they new almost immediately it was al Qaeda…but two and a half months after the attack they don’t know yet who removed the reference from the talking points…

GMAFB…

catmman on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The three biggest names in American intelligence still haven’t been able to figure out who removed a key part of an intel finding that’s been hotly disputed in public for two months? That’s like Obama needing an investigation to find out what he did or didn’t order the military to do to rescue Americans pinned down at the CIA annex on the night of the attack. How hard would it be to find this out?

“Just conservative fetishes for conspiracies and coincidences” — intrepid media.

Spontaneously combust, most all media. What you eat is Obama’s sh*t, not Beluga caviar. You allowed the land to go to Hades.

May you all suffocate from what you consume.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

This is why public hearings would be useful.

Why on Earth was Petraeus not put under oath?

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:40 PM

While I understand the attraction to this sex scandal deal, it’s a distraction from the much bigger issue of voter fraud.

There is not voter fraud.

Liberals and Democrats told me so.

catmman on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

BTW, do we even know who is conducting this investigation?

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Senior WH staffers, Scratcher and Malaria

burrata on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Ok. That still doesn’t answer who removed the reference to Al-Qaeda and replaced it with the Lie of the “YouTube Video”! If this is the case, then why is Rice not as incensed by her being made a fool of by the Regime, like Colin Powell? If she has no problem being made to look like a fool, then why are the Dems, trying to prtray her as a victim?
None of this changes the fact that, Obama’s arming Al-Qaeda & Ordered the “Stand Down” of rescuers, of the Benghazi 4! Betrayal and TREASON, will always be the Legacy of the Marxist Messiah, Benedict Obama!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

People died
Obama lied
Obfuscation erected
Obama re-elected

Suffer fools. The land deserves him fully.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM

That those three guys do not know who did the “editing” tells me that NI and CIA DID NOT do it.
That leaves State and White House.

If they edited what the intel folks provided, they most definately where NOT basing their comments on the “best intel” available.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

who removed a key part of an intel finding that’s been hotly disputed in public for two months?

Who removed a key part of David Petraeus’ testimony when he focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video rather than the terrorist element?

sharrukin on November 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Question still not asked “why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi, officially and unofficially, on the anniv. of 9/11?”

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

These are really dumb people.
It is KNOWN that AQ offshoot in Libya made a claim two hours into the action.
They told us.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Lool, while in the meantime help was on the way :) nooot……so, while the terrorists were operating freely and taking out our people, the WH was hesitantto call them terrorists so that they didn’t know that the WH knew who they were :)..can’t make this msm shite up, reality beats fiction by far…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Stalin and Goebbels laugh their dead azzes off.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Axelrod & Jarrett’s fingerprints are all over this.

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I’m getting some bad vibes on Petraeus.Him being a Ranger and all of that HoooAh is looking like BS.This cloak and dagger behind closed doors leaves the truth to us peons in question.I’m doubting his integrity until we find otherwise.

docflash on November 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Who removed a key part of David Petraeus’ testimony when he focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video rather than the terrorist element?

sharrukin on November 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

How about this? Top of page.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM

The three biggest names in American intelligence still haven’t been able to figure out who removed a key part of an intel finding that’s been hotly disputed in public for two months?

CIA is not allowed to spy on people like Axelrod or Jarrett.

rbj on November 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM

This from BBC’s website -

“During two appearances on Capitol Hill on Friday he (Petraeus) said the public explanation had been edited to prevent alerting groups under suspicion.”

Is that a new wrinkle? I haven’t heard anyone (yet) on our news sites reports this. Maybe it is old news?

DoubleClutchin on November 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Axelrod & Jarrett’s fingerprints are all over this.

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Absolutely, especially that the whole thing was threatening the Imbecile in Chief’s re-election..

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Obama king of the commandos, had to be cajoled into the kill OBL operation, dragged against his will but now proud of it. The deletions and foot dragging, worse , the lack of miltary intervention are representative of Obama’s muslim sympathies. It’s getting tougher to hide. Let’s see what support he now offers Israel?

arand on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Absolutely, especially that the whole thing was threatening the Imbecile in Chief’s re-election..

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Why can’t they be subpoened to testify under oath?

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

And you can’t look at this possible (I’m being charitable) politicization of intelligence without also remembering how this White House released secret information following the Bin Laden killing and also classified information about the Stuxnet virus targetting the Iranian nuclear program.

There’s a rather impressive list of examples of this Administration putting politics above national security in an attempt to make itself look good. I think most of this can be traced back to Clapper if not Obama himself.

This didn’t happen in a vacuum.

SteveMG on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

go back through the saved drafts and figure out where the reference to Al Qaeda mysteriously disappeared.

It was Rosemary Woods in the secretarial pool with the missing 18 minutes of tape recordings.

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

This from BBC’s website -

“During two appearances on Capitol Hill on Friday he (Petraeus) said the public explanation had been edited to prevent alerting groups under suspicion.”

Is that a new wrinkle? I haven’t heard anyone (yet) on our news sites reports this. Maybe it is old news?

DoubleClutchin on November 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Oh, I see. So the YouTube video explanation was just misdirection on the White House’s part to fool the terrorists, not the American people. Riiiiiiiight. I suppose putting that filmmaker behind bars is all part of the ruse. I’m sure he’s in on it.

BTW, did any of this elaborate scheme help us track down the terrorists responsible for the attack? Last time I checked, no one involved has been brought to justice as Obama promised.

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The Houston Chronicle web site states proudly they are the number 4 largest paper in the country and not one word about these hearings has been published.

docflash on November 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Of course the Obama administration knew it was al Qaeda. Everyone did. No one bought the “Peaceful protests run amok” line. But they knew the truth would hurt them, either because they left over 30 Americans to face al Qaeda on their own – and four were brutally murdered – or because they’re up to no good over there in the first place and didn’t want us to find out what they’re up to – or both. They thought they’d kill two birds by telling a lie that would protect themselves and send a message to the American people that if you dare to criticize Islam, you’re responsible for the brutal burders of Americans.

Cara C on November 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Good morning my friend, oh wait it is afternoon for you isn’t it. Look you have to quit all this insane common sense talk, not sure if you didn’t get the memo from the ruling class up in DC, but they like their subjects clueless and needy, easily distracted by bread and circuses, or any squirrel!!!!

MarshFox on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

While I understand the attraction to this sex scandal deal, it’s a distraction from the much bigger issue of voter fraud.

19,650 to 0 in a set of precincts in Cleveland. Mitt Romney didn’t get a single vote. Not from shaky-handed old black man. Not from some rebel black kid wanting to show up his moma. Not from any black conservatives. Not a single vote.

Yet HotAir and other right media are completely ignoring the election results.

Voter fraud is of far greater importance than some generals having sex with some book authors and socialites.

ericdondero on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Well, if it had been done on a vast, wide scale in 2012, it can’t be kept a secret. Somebody would squeal. Just like what I tell the 9/11 Troofers.

But even if it is proven to have happened, what next? After the Democrats Stole the 1960 Presidential election in Illinois and Texas with voter and vote fraud, hundreds of Dem operatives were eventually charged, but the majority of them were never punished, because they were let off by Activist Democrat Judges, especially in Illinois.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. Maybe somebody will spill the beans, but don’t hold your breath.

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Even if Petraeus doesn’t know, DNI James Clapper should know.

As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) Clapper collects all intel, sorts through it, and gives a report to Obama.

Sending Rice out there, who is an Obama loyalist, also indicates to me that Obama wanted his message out.

INC on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Obama was repeating the CIA’s intelligence reports, not engaged in a broad conspiracy to hide the truth.
 
bayam on October 24, 2012 at 12:12 AM

rogerb on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The Houston Chronicle web site states proudly they are the number 4 largest paper in the country and not one word about these hearings has been published.

docflash on November 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM

No doubt if they were number 2 they would try harder.

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Yet HotAir and other right media are completely ignoring the election results.

Voter fraud is of far greater importance than some generals having sex with some book authors and socialites.

ericdondero on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

This!
everyone is afraid to point out the emperor has no clothes.

Did you see the look On Mr Christies face as he stood behind the one?

MrMoe on November 16, 2012 at 5:00 PM

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

This from BBC’s website -

“During two appearances on Capitol Hill on Friday he (Petraeus) said the public explanation had been edited to prevent alerting groups under suspicion.”

Is that a new wrinkle? I haven’t heard anyone (yet) on our news sites reports this. Maybe it is old news?

DoubleClutchin on November 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM

This is BS. AQ in Libya had a claim up on twitter before the attack was over.
Tripoli folks notified US as soon as they saw it as they were wigging out.

THEY. TOLD. US. They wanted us to know and were public about it.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Axelrod & Jarrett’s fingerprints are all over this.

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Ding, ding, ding!

But it wasn’t politically motivated.

/

antipc on November 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

“The general completely debunked the idea that there was some politicization of the process,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank).
quote from the LA Times…
and if he can buy a couple vowels he might have a clue…

going2mars on November 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Sending Rice out there, who is an Obama loyalist, also indicates to me that Obama wanted his message out.

INC on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

She reports directly to Obama. He is her boss. There is no one in between.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Absolutely, especially that the whole thing was threatening the Imbecile in Chief’s re-election..

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Why can’t they be subpoened to testify under oath?

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

No idea, am not so familiar with these procedural gimmicks…am sure Rice will be subpoena….axelrod and jarrett, they might too if the ‘omission’ from the CIA report points directly to them…but then, am sure they will scapegoat some poor innocent staff…those two thugs are Obozo’s brain and balls :)…he can’t do without them…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 5:04 PM

This country is officially doomed. Honesty and integrity a thing of the past and it was glaringly obvious last Tuesday.

Who’s idea was it to keep these hearings behind closed doors? And why do I get the feeling that Petraeus was treated with kid gloves today?

We need to face the hard truth, we will never get a straight answer out of this Regime. That was apparent after the King’s big press conference on Tuesday.

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Actually I was just surprised Petraeus said this. It was the first time I had seen this and was wondering if anyone knew if he had said this before or if it had be floated before in the many explanations that have been put forth. Trying to keep straight what has (and hasn’t) been said is a bit challenging. :-)

DoubleClutchin on November 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Daniel Halper at the Standard. Intelligence sources were whispering about the Al Qaeda omission to Stephen Hayes weeks ago. That’s how suspicious they were of it:

An attack on a consulate at the heart of Al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts? Why would anybody suspect something had been ommitted?

The fact of the matter is even a half-decent intelligence analyst would find it strange that there was no mention of Al Qaeda. Not to say they could definitively say AQ was involved but the city and region requires to rule AQ in/out/or too early to say. Rice lied her ass off and made the claim that this was nothing more than a bad film review. Why? Because her boss, the rat-eared wonder, had an election to steal.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM

“This Libya thing doesn’t seem quite right. Yeah, what is going on with that?” – 59 Million Americans 2 weeks after the election.

kcluva on November 16, 2012 at 5:13 PM

What I don’t get is why this site and others continue to show Petraeus in uniform? He’s retired, and all this had nothing to do directly with anything he did as a military commander. He’s a civilian again and should be shown in a suit IMHO.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Daniel Halper at the Standard. Intelligence sources were whispering about the Al Qaeda omission to Stephen Hayes weeks ago. That’s how suspicious they were of it:

And yet no one said anything about these suspicions. Funny that.

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM

By Associated Press, Nov 16, 2012 09:37 PM EST

AP Published: November 15 | Updated: Friday, November 16, 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON — Testifying out of sight, ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus’ private briefings

plewis on November 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

lol this is so sad, yet hilarious!

profitsbeard, from early this morning:

Barry’s next lie will be to claim that he was lying to deceive the terrorists and make catching them easier.

“Folks… it was what the intelligence people call ‘strategic misdirection’ to keep the enemy guessing. I’m sorry I had to involve Ms. Rice in it, but she is entirely blameless. We could not let the terrorists know we were on to them so fast. We were letting them play out the line so that we can haul in more of them.”

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

The Onion couldn’t do this any better.

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The CIA has NO business investigating itself. The FBI should do it.

Holder told Obama a few minutes after he knew about the affair. NO one should believe a single word from any of the two men, er.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

For all intents and purposes, Holder IS the FBI. It falls under his jurisdiction. Furthermore, the FBI would be the same agency sent to investigate the attack in Benghazi and did such a great job that CNN found the Ambassador’s journal after the FBI was gone and Foreign Policy mag found classified documents scattered throughout the consulate weeks later.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

While I understand the attraction to this sex scandal deal, it’s a distraction from the much bigger issue of voter fraud.

19,650 to 0 in a set of precincts in Cleveland. Mitt Romney didn’t get a single vote. Not from shaky-handed old black man. Not from some rebel black kid wanting to show up his moma. Not from any black conservatives. Not a single vote.

Yet HotAir and other right media are completely ignoring the election results.

Voter fraud is of far greater importance than some generals having sex with some book authors and socialites.

ericdondero on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Yep. But someone might take it the wrong way. Or say something bad about someone who pushes it. Or might not like them anymore.

Be under no illusion that in a lot of cases the right media is no better than the left media – it’s all about what is best for them rather than getting to the truth and facts.

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

For all intents and purposes, Holder IS the FBI. It falls under his jurisdiction. Furthermore, the FBI would be the same agency sent to investigate the attack in Benghazi and did such a great job that CNN found the Ambassador’s journal after the FBI was gone and Foreign Policy mag found classified documents scattered throughout the consulate weeks later.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

CNN found the diary 3 or 4 days after the attack, the FBI didn’t get there for a couple of weeks due to “visa” issues.

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus’ private briefings

plewis on November 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So, Petraeus knows why the al Qaeda reference was removed but doesn’t know who removed it…and neither does Clapper, Morell or anyone else in the administration???

THE IMMACULATE EDIT-ION

It’s like the Keystone Kops are playing the Party Line game…or, more likely, some people are just bias and gullible because they don’t want ObamaMessiah to be tarnished in any way.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 5:24 PM

That leaves State and White House.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I’m putting my money on the WH (Axelrod/Jarrett), but I must confess there is the smell of Clintons in the distance, especially when Shillary’s legacy in at risk.

We could probably figger which of these two, WH or State, if we knew why the FBI dove into the Kelly investigation with both feet. Who influence was at work here?

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

CNN found the diary 3 or 4 days after the attack, the FBI didn’t get there for a couple of weeks due to “visa” issues.

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Thx. FP was there weeks afterward and found classified documents.

Now that I’m thinking about it, I think the FBI was conducting interviews from the safety of their cars.

Yep…

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/africa/security-fears-hobble-inquiry-of-libya-attack.html?pagewanted=all

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Trying to keep straight what has (and hasn’t) been said is a bit challenging. :-)

DoubleClutchin on November 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Okay, here’s the general recap……

On 9/12 Hillary Clinton and the rat-eared wonder made the claim this was a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video. That story generally held for the next week during which time the video claim was repeated by Susan Rice and the rat-eared wonder both on The View and at the UN. We didn’t get any details but the US spent $19K on ads assuring the Muslim animals that killed our people that we do not support films that say mean things about their prophet. And the Federal government arrested the film maker just to appease these animals and hate-groups like CAIR (he remains incarcerated).

Then the story started coming apart. CNN found the ambassador’s journal in the rubble. It was disclosed the FBI which the rat-eared wonder said was being rushed to secure the crime scene was still sitting in Tripoli two weeks after the massacre. The rat-eared wonder was no longer talking about the video but had yet to call it a terrorist act. Jay Carney came close but then walked it back the next day.

We next learned that Washington had real-time video of the attacks, that they knew from the beginning that it was a coordinated attack (film critics seldom bring mortars though some probably would support the practice). And we found out that there was a long series of communications begging DC for greater security in Benghazi.

About a month after the attack, the rat-eared wonder had his second debate with Mitt Romney. He made the claim there that he was calling it terrorism from the outset. And Candy Crowley, putting down the fried chicken long enough to wave a copy of the 9/12 speech transcript, was cued to back up the lie so blatant that even the WaPo called him on it.

And now, it appears the official story is that it was indeed terrorism but having real-time video wasn’t good enough to make such a conclusion since our intellegence community is so inept. We’re supposed to be side-tracked by TMZ-level gossip so we won’t pay attention to the real story. And any question of the woman who lied her ass off on five Sunday talk shows is automatically racist and sexist!

So, in short, this administration has taken every position on every issue. We still do not know what the CIA was doing in Benghazi, why assistance from the DoD took a day, or who gave the order for those fighting the Muslim animals to stand down. The rat-eared wonder claims to have had no knowledge about anything until the day after the election was over even though several events would have been pushed up to President in any other administration but that of Captain Kickass (he got OBL you know).

Hope that clears things up.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The Onion couldn’t do this any better.

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Of course it can be done better…see, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, et al.

Oh WAIT…The Onion…well in that case we need to look also at Jon Stewart and what’s that other shmuck… oh yeah, Stephen Cobert.

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Seems that NO ONE in this administration knows what is going on. I’ll be that intel report was changed by the same guys who ran Fast and Furious behind Barry and Holder’s backs. Same guys who authorized the Solyndra loan.

GarandFan on November 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

That leaves State and White House.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

No, it only leaves the Whitehouse, The State Department is NOT in the CIA’s chain of command to the Whitehouse. The CIA reports directly to the Whitehouse. It does not go through the State Department or the Department of Justice.

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Now that I’m thinking about it, I think the FBI was conducting interviews from the safety of their cars.

Yep…

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/africa/security-fears-hobble-inquiry-of-libya-attack.html?pagewanted=all

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Looking back now, I wonder if that “visa issue” was cover because they were too busy sifting through Kelley’s and Alan’s e-mails.

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Petraeus lied for Obama, and for himself, and now that he’s been cornered, he’s doing a limited ‘hang out’ while all the while claiming he had told the truth when he said before the House Intelligence Committee that it was the video. Of course, anyone who had been paying attention already knew that Petraeus is a VERY Clintonesque man, in fact maybe even more Clintonesque than Clinton.

Andrew C. McCarthy: “Boot’s attack on West is an effort to defend a surpassingly foolish statement in which Gen. David Petraeus cast Israel as the source of all America’s woes in the Middle East. To his great discredit, the general — in a Clintonesque fashion which, as we shall see, is probably not a coincidence — simultaneously denied making the statement, grudgingly admitted making it while minimizing its significance, and accused West and others of misrepresenting his views. In fact, the general’s critics quoted his words at length, placed them in unmistakable context, anddrew from them the same commonsense conclusion drawn by Israel’s gleeful critics — for whom Petraeus is the hero of the moment.”

VorDaj on November 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Of course it can be done better…see, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, et al.

Oh WAIT…The Onion…well in that case we need to look also at Jon Stewart and what’s that other shmuck… oh yeah, Stephen Cobert.

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

If you mean that they’re outdoing The Onion by trying to pawn off that angle as a serious rather than a humorous one to the same lot that gets hysterical over AGW, I concede the point!

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I’m putting my money on the WH (Axelrod/Jarrett), but I must confess there is the smell of Clintons in the distance, especially when Shillary’s legacy in at risk.

We could probably figger which of these two, WH or State, if we knew why the FBI dove into the Kelly investigation with both feet. Who influence was at work here?

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Go with your instincts. This was all about protecting the myth that Obama by trashing our relationship with Israel had built budding democracies among the Muslim nations. That he had thwarted Al Qaeda and made them impotent to launch attacks on America.

The Clintons are too politically astute to be as stupid as the rat-eared wonder was in spinning the story. Bill Clinton stuck to the “nuts and sluts” story about Monica Lewinski from the beginning. Unnamed staffers were talking about how he was only trying to help a mentally unbalanced intern. In short they were doing a very good job of turning Clinton into a victim and Lewinski into a stalker….. Then that blue dress with genetic material emerged. But up until that point, the story was the same.

In comparison, the rat-eared wonder has spun it many different ways that work against each other. Had he used the Clinton approach of putting all the energy into consistently telling the same lie, the whole issue would be history by now.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Too bad the media is so corrupt that they helped Obama and his cronies cover it up. How much more will it take before people get so outraged with the blatant corruption of the MSM that they pick up pitchforks?

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Yet HotAir and other right media are completely ignoring the election results.

Voter fraud is of far greater importance than some generals having sex with some book authors and socialites.

ericdondero on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Yep. But someone might take it the wrong way. Or say something bad about someone who pushes it. Or might not like them anymore.

Be under no illusion that in a lot of cases the right media is no better than the left media – it’s all about what is best for them rather than getting to the truth and facts.

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The “Professional Bloggers” are afraid that they’ll be called Truther’s or conspiracy theorists or even god forbid Racists if they even wrinkle their noses in the general direction of discussing, let alone making the accusation that Obama won through outright massive voter fraud.

Yes… They cherish their beloved “Reputations” as objectively based reasonable people more than they care about the truth. Most of them have even already convinced themselves that voter fraud while it may have played a small role, simply wasn’t on a large enough scale to have affected the elections outcome. They are not about to risk the potential negative consequences of posting anything that asserts otherwise.

Those of us who ARE NOT “Professional Bloggers” don’t necessarily have such financial ethical compunctions against asking such questions.

Serious Question here… What if….

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

The talking points magically appeared one day on Rice’s desk and no one knows where they came from. Much like those missing FBI files did in the Clinton WH.

farsighted on November 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Why on Earth was Petraeus not put under oath?

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Even under oath his testimony would be suspect. Without him being under oath, it’s worthless.

VorDaj on November 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM

How much more will it take before people get so outraged with the blatant corruption of the MSM that they pick up pitchforks?

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Be careful… Somebody will no doubt be calling for the banhammer on your for making threats against the Wonderful Fifth Column Treasonous Media… Myself, personally the notions of Stout Hemp Rope, Streetlamps and Media personal, with some assembly required seems much more appropriate.

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

i havent a clue ‘where or who has/wrote the false talking poins’
but i do know 3 people in the upper east side
on first and elm at 23 elm need a ride to vote…
the phone number there is xxx-xxxx and the taler
ones name is walter,,,he works at the free stuff store
with his wife julia and their daughter lil ms givmemorestuff
get them a free ride so they can vote for the BHO….
someone get em a city bus….stat…
important white house talking points…..shrugs…i dunno..

going2mars on November 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM

farsighted on November 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM
good point…did someone check the clinton
coffee table for small scraps of CIA truth..??

going2mars on November 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM

What I don’t get is why this site and others continue to show Petraeus in uniform? He’s retired, and all this had nothing to do directly with anything he did as a military commander. He’s a civilian again and should be shown in a suit IMHO.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Yes, a suit, and one with black and white stripes, or pink like they do in Arizona.

VorDaj on November 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

This has Joe Biden’s fingerprints all over it:

Stupid? Check.

Clumsy? Check.

Inept? Check.

“Hey Joe! The President wants you to wait for him out at the bus stop, OK?”

Bruno Strozek on November 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Rice knows who changed it. Bring her butt in and don’t release her until she either tells or is charged with contempt. And to hell with those female leftists in the house that are screaming sexism and all other “isms” they can think of. Let them scream their heads off but get the truth from Rice. Enough of this “nice, nice” crap.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

What I don’t get is why this site and others continue to show Petraeus in uniform? He’s retired, and all this had nothing to do directly with anything he did as a military commander. He’s a civilian again and should be shown in a suit IMHO.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I had the exact same thought. Along the same lines, he’s always referred to as a retired general but wouldn’t former CIA director be more appropriate? I’m not saying that Petraeus’ military career should be forgotten but John Glenn was usally referred to as Senator Glenn (not former astronaut), John McCain is usually referred to as Senator McCain (not former POW), and even Al Franken is referred to as Senator and not former failed comedian.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

The LA times says ties to al qaeda were downplayed to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

red_herring on November 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Are you that gullible?

CW on November 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Wells gosh darn do you suppose Mr control freak narcissist micro manager had anything to do with that?

Speakup on November 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM

But even if it [voter fraud] is proven to have happened, what next?

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

For your (and I recommend everyone’s) consideration: Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM
she might not know who edited it…
(perhaps it was done befor she recieved it)
but…she damn well knows who gave her the
talking points …

going2mars on November 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If only this cover up came out before the elections huh Cons? Lol. Memo to the loser party- Obama won. Romney lost. Too late for this to dare cause any political issue for the president. He is a Teflon President. Lol

Maybe Romney can demand for a redo.

Anyway on a more serious note, who cares about this non story? The only ones who care are they same people who voted for the loser last week Tuesday. Irrelevant people.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

No idea, am not so familiar with these procedural gimmicks…am sure Rice will be subpoena….axelrod and jarrett, they might too if the ‘omission’ from the CIA report points directly to them…but then, am sure they will scapegoat some poor innocent staff…those two thugs are Obozo’s brain and balls :)…he can’t do without them…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 5:04 PM

No one from the White House will ever testify; they’ll claim “Executive Privilege” and that’ll be the end of it.

Remember the Fast & Furious hearings? Yeah, those ended well …

The only recourse is impeachment (of course the Senate will never convict, however do it anyway) — but if the spineless GOP House “leadership” were ever going to do that, they would have done it two years ago. So that’s not going to happen.

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Rice knows who changed it. Bring her butt in and don’t release her until she either tells or is charged with contempt. And to hell with those female leftists in the house that are screaming sexism and all other “isms” they can think of. Let them scream their heads off but get the truth from Rice. Enough of this “nice, nice” crap.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

They could also go back to the document itself, and click on properties and look at the “last edited by” thingy. ;0

Seriously, there is no way that the administration couldn’t provide a paper trail on this, if they wanted the truth to be known.

Who drafted the talking points.

Who they were sent to for comments.

Who approved the final draft.

Who gave them to Susan Rice.

And so forth……

But the reality is that this is as much a part of the cover-up as anything else. The rat-eared wonder does not want to let us know how much political/campaign discussion was part of developing a narrative to be fed to Sunday talk shows. Including the back and forth as to who should deliver the message with the key decision to put in a relatively unknown woman slobbering over the idea of replacing Hillary Clinton at State instead of one of the more conventional choices like SecState, SecDef, or the director of the CIA.

This is sausage-making stuff and the rat-eared wonder does not want to disclose that this was purely about the campaign and very little about explaining why he managed to get four Americans killed by a bunch of Muslim animals in an area his stump speech claimed was terrorist-free.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

This is not about politics. It is about the murder of the first American Ambassador since 1979 and 3 other Americans.

As an American, I DEMAND to the truth and, frankly, I don’t care who goes down and to which party they belong. It’s a shame that you don’t. I guess that’s why you are an Obama Firster and I’m an America Firster.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Anyway on a more serious note, who cares about this non story? The only ones who care are they same people who voted for the loser last week Tuesday. Irrelevant people.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

On a more serious note, who seriously cares what a dishonest and obfuscatory attention-seeker like you has to say? You’re a gnat here, and nothing more.

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I served 23 years. There’s never been a dirtier general.

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

No one from the White House will ever testify; they’ll claim “Executive Privilege” and that’ll be the end of it.

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM

EP is not as broad as many believe. Nixon tried to invoke EP to shield members of his administration from testifying and from disclosing documents. Read United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Memo to the loser party- Obama won. Romney lost. Too late for this to dare cause any political issue for the president. He is a Teflon President. Lol

Maybe Romney can demand for a redo.

Anyway on a more serious note, who cares about this non story? The only ones who care are they same people who voted for the loser last week Tuesday. Irrelevant people.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Nixon won 49 states in 1972. Was he Teflon proof about Watergate? Political issues have their own schedule. All the rat-ear wonder did was run the clock out before the election.

But to your more serious note. Why is the deaths of four Americans, the massive cover-up by a clearly corrupt administration, and all the lies a non-story?

My prediction, Romney can’t call a redo but we will be saying President Joe Biden before the end of the rat-eared loser’s second term.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Anyway on a more serious note, who cares about this non story? The only ones who care are they same people who voted for the loser last week Tuesday. Irrelevant people.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The families of the 4 dead Americans, douchbag? Your messiah has blood on his hands. Own it.

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I served 23 years. There’s never been a dirtier general.

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I served 23 years and I disagree. Wesley Clark comes to mind immediately. But where the real dirt occurs is not at the generals and admirals strutting around with aspirations of political office. It is the level just below that include some of the finest and some of the worst.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I served 23 years. There’s never been a dirtier general.

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Douglas Macgregor (retired Army colonel and author of “Breaking the Phalanx): “Petraeus is a remarkable piece of fiction created and promoted by neocons in government, the media and academia, How does an officer with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert Storm become a division CDR in 2003, a man who for 35 years shamelessly reinforced whatever dumb idea his superiors advanced regardless of its impact on soldiers, let alone the nation, a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp, military assistant and executive officer to four stars get so far?

How does the same man who balked at closing with and destroying the enemy in 2003 in front of Baghdad agree to sacrifice more than a thousand American lives and destroy thousands of others installing Iranian national power in Baghdad with a surge that many in and out of uniform warned against? Then, how does this same man repeat the self-defeating tactics one more time in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Petraeus was always a useful fool in the Leninist sense for his political superiors — Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Gates. And that is precisely how history will judge him.”

VorDaj on November 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM

I served 23 years and I disagree. Wesley Clark comes to mind immediately. But where the real dirt occurs is not at the generals and admirals strutting around with aspirations of political office. It is the level just below that include some of the finest and some of the worst.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Thanks for your service. Clark did a heckuva job on Waco. I don’t remember him giving classified documents to his girlfriend.

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Anyway on a more serious note, who cares about this non story? The only ones who care are they same people who voted for the loser last week Tuesday. Irrelevant people.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Translated: “I would have absolutely no problem with an incumbent Republican President and his people doing the exact same thing weeks before an election that could re-elect him.”

Thanks for your candor!

A+

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2