Petraeus: Al Qaeda mention was removed from Benghazi memo so as not to tip them off
“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”
Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.
Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.
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 Next »
I don’t even care anymore. This government is so corrupt it oozes from their pores.
darwin on November 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM
oh yes. of course.
/
ted c on November 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Oh, ok. A lot of good that did since we still haven’t captured any of the terrorists responsible for the attack.
(BTW, is this really how Petreaus wants to go out?)
Doughboy on November 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM
So instead of tipping them off, we throw the first amendment under the bus.. Great strategy!
kringeesmom on November 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Wow…just wow. There must be videos too:)
Clink on November 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Removing any mention of AQ means lying to the American people about a video? Which, subsequently, undermines our most cherished ideal of free speech. It seems to me Petraeus is trying to walk a tightrope here. AQ does not need to be mentioned while telling us the truth. Calling it a terrorist attack while not fingering AQ is what we should expect from our leaders if they really don’t want to show their hand to our enemies.
NotCoach on November 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Good spin NYT. Thanks for clearing that up.
rich801 on November 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM
More bs from Team Obama. Just tell us the damn truth already.
SoulGlo on November 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM
This explanation is so freakin’ lame it’s almost beyond parody. Juvenile delinquents come up with better excuses for not handing in their homework on time.
Dusty on November 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Just another BenghaziGate lie.
kingsjester on November 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM
God, do the democrats and Obama’s think we are morons. You didn’t want to mention it was because al-Qaeda you didn’t want al-Qaeda to know they attacked Us. Do you realize how insane that is.
Unfortunately, Our US media (pravda) will report this as if it is serious.
What we have is Obama for personal gain not to impact his re election campaign covered up the al-Qaeda attack because it was in conflict with his campaign meme. So to obama the deaths of 4 american heroes were bumps in the road to his re-election.
What blows my mind is their is not one military guy who is willing to tell the truth. What happened to integrity. That should trump personal ambition to lie!!!
Danielvito on November 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Lame.
Paul-Cincy on November 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Tip them off to what? That we know they don’t like us?
CurtZHP on November 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM
What was Stevens doing in Benghazi? Where are the survivors being held?
txhsmom on November 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Stop lying.
forest on November 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM
I thought we didn’t even know who took the points out.
How could he possibly know why they took them out?
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM
The closet Muslim corrupts everything he touches. Petraeus is a lying scoundrel.
Basilsbest on November 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM
…..
This.
……………………………
The Dems and the General are full of BS.
CW on November 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM
So, the CIA, State Dept. and White House didn’t want to tip off Al Qaeda that they already attacked us.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Rixon on November 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM
The Wages of 6 November 2012
M2RB: Led Zepplin
Resist We Much on November 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Petraeus helped get the closet Muslim re-elected. Mission accomplished.
Basilsbest on November 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM
FDR: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will nobody will remember —the United States of America experienced an accident with some random ships.”
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Petraeus: “They don’t know that we know they know we know.”
Fallon on November 17, 2012 at 10:51 AM
AQ published a video on 9-10 saying they were going to attack us. Really.
I am beginning to think that Petraeus is a lying weasel.
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM
The secret word here is “unclassified.” They edited the unclassified memo.
I’m assuming the president gets the real unedited one, right?
Think that through.
The original NYT article on this isn’t even self-consistent on the “protest” meme:
tbrosz on November 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility within hours of the attack while then calling for attacks on the embassy in Tripoli. I’m not sure that was the one on Facebook, but, hell, I doubt they really care whether we know about their Facebook page or not, the intelligence community wouldn’t be the only ones to know of it.
This argument just makes them look both out of touch and stupid and they aren’t out of touch and stupid, except insofar as they are using it to defend their not calling it a terrorist attack immediately.
BTW, this excuse DOES NOT explain anything about the Obama Administration’s negligence in both providing adequate security and failing to rescue our people at the consulate. In fact, this d@mns them to h3ll for their inaction with regard to the issue of rescue. They knew immediately but didn’t do anything.
Dusty on November 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM
The AQ reference was removed from the Benghazi memo so as not to tip off the American sheeple that AQ wasn’t “on its heels, on the run, and almost dead like Osama bin Laden but unlike GM.”
So, we don’t want to “tip off” the enemy, but it’s OK to lie to the American people and sic Federal agents on the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, in the middle of the night, who was arrested, perp-walked in front of international camera crews, thrown in solitary confinement in a Federal detention centre on an alleged probation violation, denied bail, and now has been sentenced to a year in jail while his family lives in mortal fear for their lives???
FU both, Barack Obama and Betraeus!
Resist We Much on November 17, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Just to be clear, this is what Democrats said Petraeus said, not necessarily what Petraeus actually said.
And why would Obama go out in the Rose Garden on 9/12 and say it was a terror attack if there were legal and national security reasons to keep that a secret from us.
The media will allow them to have it both ways again, but it’s getting pretty tough for them to cover this up for the Regime.
forest on November 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM
So they scapegoated the guy who made that “film” …hmmm.
How responsible./
CW on November 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM
So, Obama is saying that Susan Rice didn’t see the ‘classified’ version????
hahahahahaha
Bingo.
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Thats just not credible.
Any hopes that Petraeus was going to open the nest to expose what has been going on has just been proven to be wasted faith.
Mimzey on November 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM
So why didn’t Petraeus tell us this before the election?
Timing.
CW on November 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Why blame a video… you could say it’s a terrorist attack without mentioning names…
BTW, foreign policy magazine went to Benghazi weeks later and found classified information just laying about.
ninjapirate on November 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Tip them off? To prevent what? A crushing attack that was a breath away from being launched??
That excuse is ridiculous.
Mimzey on November 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Not if his wife wants to keep her job.
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Wait a minute, King said yesterday that Petraeus didn’t know who removed the reference. It follows that he could only infer why they had done it, unless they told him. So, who’s lying here, the reporters, King, Schiff, or Petraeus?
claudius on November 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Plus, DP loses his pension, and is tried for lying to Congress.
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM
I’m amazed with the stupidity of this excuse. Your enemy not knowing you’re on to them only matters before the attack, not after. When you are looking at a dead US ambassador and thee others killed, being paraded through the streets, then the enemy is no longer trying to fly under the radar. Hell, they freaking took credit for it! You cant say you didn’t want them to know that you know, when they are telling you they did it so that you’ll know.
Weight of Glory on November 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM
And this stupid argument brings up another question. They knew immediately but didn’t want to let them know that they were tracking them, supposedly so we could continue to track them.
So the result of that argument was that they didn’t realize we were tracking them for what, a couple of weeks? Why the h3ll aren’t they dead?
Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.
Dusty on November 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Yes he didn’t know who removed it but he knew it was not political.
Got it.
CW on November 17, 2012 at 11:04 AM
If they don’t know who made the changes how do they know what the intent was for the changes..?
d1carter on November 17, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Let’s hear from the person/persons that made the changes to the reports and how they prepped Susan Rice. Were they using the latest information or was it five days old?
d1carter on November 17, 2012 at 11:06 AM
I hate to be so cold about this.. but… I’m wondering what we get out of this politically by pursuing it (obviously the truth of course, so save the outrage).
Obama is focused on the 2014 mid-terms. This doesn’t effect that (does it?)
Obama cant run again in 2016. This doesnt effect that (does it?)
faraway on November 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If this had/has been deemed the work of terrorists, named or unnamed, it is not the purview of the Dept. of Justice to make decisions on the handling of the attack.
If Eric Holder’s Dept. of Justice is involved, we can be assured that the decision was political.
onlineanalyst on November 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Bullish!t.
’nuff said.
LtGenRob on November 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Don’t you know the terrorists assumed everything was cool afterwards. Heck they went to play golf and to the beach. They had no clue that such an attack would lead to us coming after them.
CW on November 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM
That’s it then. The corruptocrats now have their own version of Richard Nixon. His name is Barack (Barry) Obama (Soweto)….
john1schn on November 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM
There ya go.
CW on November 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM
REALLY?? The contempt this excuse shows for the ability to think logically in the public is downright staggering.
michaelo on November 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM
NYT found him (anonymously of course) and is running with his spin:
Throwing the youtube guy in prison for mindcrimes was part of this “cover story” too, I presume.
Hey, at least they are now admitting that the “video did it” explanations were a lie all along.
forest on November 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »