You have commented 23 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Photo
Home Front: Politix
Rep King: Petraeus Testified Al-Queda Element Removed from Rice's CIA Talking Points
2012-11-16
Will update as more info comes available
Republican Congressman Peter King just exited the closed-door hearing with David Petraeus to update the media, and his description of the ex-CIA Chief's testimony contained more than one bombshell.

For starters, King said Petraeus told them that the CIA talking points meant for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's Sept. 16 round robin of five Sunday network news shows, originally contained the information that there was evidence al-Qaeda elements were involved in the attack. These talking points were then altered by the White House or someone close to the White House.
Independently of the 'talking points', Amb. Rice is a full member of the Cabinet and had available to her what was given to the Cabinet.

The issue is not JUST what she was given, but more importantly what she was TOLD TO SAY. And what to keep quiet.
Obviously, what we now know is that in their final format, the talking points in question focused exclusively on the false idea that the September 11 anniversary attack was motivated by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

King also said that the testimony from Petraeus today was much different than his original testimony on Sept. 14. Today, Petraeus told the committee that he knew "almost immediately" that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called Ansar al Sharia and that the "overwhelming amount of evidence said this was a terror attack." According to numerous reports, in his original testimony, Petraeus focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as the prime motivator for the attack.

So, at least according to Rep. King, we have Petraeus amending and/or contradicting his original testimony, and the news that somewhere in-between the CIA and Susan Rice, removed from the CIA talking points that insisted there was "no evidence" of a pre-meditated terrorist attack was the information about Ansar al Sharia.

This leaves us with two new and very important questions that must be answered:

If he did, why did Petraeus change his testimony?

Who changed the CIA talking points, removing the evidence an al-Qaeda element was likely involved in the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans?
Posted by:Sherry

#28  Kinda makes me feel like I'm living in The Matrix.

"One of these identities has a future, General Anderson, and one of them does not."
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2012-11-16 23:05  

#27  In that case, Rob Crawford, why was the Admiral in the Meditaranean also relieved of command for not obeying the "stand down"? Obviously, the timing may have been more than a coinckydink.
Posted by: Mugsy Glink   2012-11-16 21:53  

#26  It's not unprecedented to put someone with a 'weakness' in a position of power...
Posted by: Pappy   2012-11-16 20:39  

#25  Honeypotted? Nah, that lets him off. I know officers who served with him ... they've been quietly unimpressed by him for some time, other than at the degree of ambition and (for a long time) hard work of a sort.

He made this mess himself. Chicago exploited it, no doubt, but he gave them the opening.
Posted by: lotp   2012-11-16 20:30  

#24  Random JD nails it for me. Under duress (blackmailed), probably honey-potted (by whom?) RJD's comment "I am much more concerned about how he was coerced and who did the coercing, and whether there are any limits." This is the key.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2012-11-16 20:26  

#23  JQC, I agree completely, but RJD, how much duress was he under? If he was being blackmailed, even implicitly, he owes it to us to come clean about it. If appropriate, a full confession would be due and cleansing. Such has not been forthcoming, and leads me only to conclude there was no externally applied duress.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2012-11-16 20:10  

#22  General Ham was not relieved for anything involving Benghazi.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2012-11-16 17:51  

#21  The individual that relieved General Ham for not following the stand down order, while General Ham was in the situation room in DC is the individual that caused the 7 hour results in Bengazi. Who is that person?
Posted by: Mugsy Glink   2012-11-16 17:46  

#20  Kinda makes me feel like I'm living in The Matrix.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2012-11-16 16:50  

#19  #17 It gets weirder. Both Jill Kelly and Paula Broadwekk visited the White House several times this past year. This whole business stinks. At this point I don't trust ANY of them.
Posted by Deacon Blues


If it were not for the dead, I can almost see a Steven Spielberg motive.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-11-16 16:37  

#18   I didn't see Pappy's comment, but he's never stupid or a troll - did you mean to squish the 50Marine thing under his?

I squished mine while trying to delete our multi-nymed spammer with the Hawaii IP.

Called for incoming fire on my position, as it were.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-11-16 16:33  

#17  It gets weirder. Both Jill Kelly and Paula Broadwekk visited the White House several times this past year. This whole business stinks. At this point I don't trust ANY of them.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2012-11-16 16:21  

#16  NS: it seems likely that what Petraeus told Congress on Sep. 14 was under duress. To my mind, that doesn't make him damaged goods. He's human, he used bad judgment, and he accepted the consequences. I am much more concerned about how he was coerced and who did the coercing, and whether there are any limits. It seems we live under a corrupt thugocracy, now with one less comparatively good guy.

JQC: agreed on all points.
Posted by: RandomJD   2012-11-16 16:10  

#15  NS, I wasn't suggesting that you believe DP or not. I was just asking about the values in our country. I was suggesting that lying seems to be acceptable since we elected a guy who is a serial liar and no one seems to notice enough to dump him out of office. Lying is not OK. Presently, I think we are being fed a load of horseshit by both parties. No one is coming clean and it pisses me off. No one has answered the questions of why Benghazi happened or what was going on there. IMO Petraeus' affair is just a sideshow and distraction. So far, the investigation is a clusterf*ck. Benghazi was a remote place run by the CIA. Most everyone else who had any sense had left because of security problems that had been ongoing for sometime prior to 911. What was so important about this place? Why wasn't more security provided but instead was denied? Four good people are dead. I don't think the truth of what happened at Benghazi is ever going to be known. This is going to be another Fast and Furious. This should have been opened up before the election but wasn't and so we ended up with what we got.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-11-16 15:48  

#14  I didn't see Pappy's comment, but he's never stupid or a troll - did you mean to squish the 50Marine thing under his?
Posted by: Glenmore   2012-11-16 15:31  

#13  JQC, what leads you to think I believe anything 0 says or think of him as anything other than damaged goods? Because the majority of Americans prefer damaged goods doesn't make them any less damaged.

Frankly, I can understand DP avoiding publicizing the truth about his extracurricular activities; I'm not his wife. But to then mislead the American people about a material fact for political gain during wartime is a horse of a different color and one horse too many.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2012-11-16 15:19  

#12  Does anyone really know much more about Benghazi as the result of these hearings than before the hearings?
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-11-16 15:11  

#11  NS, Petraeus was working against terrorists abroad but forgot the dangers on the home front. If trustworthiness is a commonly shared value, why does anyone believe what the Champ says? And why isn't he damaged goods too.

I don't know what the entire truth is about Petraeus. Everyone falls down occasionally. Most likely Petraeus will be dealing with this the rest of his life.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-11-16 15:07  

#10  Petreus is also self-admittedly untrustworthy. How will anyone ever know whether to believe him again? Damaged goods.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2012-11-16 14:31  

#9  My guess is the change of testimony is due to Gen. Petraeus no longer being under pressure / blackmail from the administration for his 'affair'.

Since he came clean and resigned - he is no longer under that threat.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2012-11-16 14:02  

#8  All this was kicked down the road until after the election. Moreover, much of what is classified is too secret to be made available to the public.

So tell me, how the hell can anyone be an informed voter? We end up voting on the basis of superficiality, class war, and promised stuff. I suppose if we ever really knew the truth regarding policy decisions and policies, we would revolt.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-11-16 13:57  

#7  It is of concern that someone changed the talking points and eliminated reference to AQ. What is of greater concern is what is not being presented to the public.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-11-16 13:51  

#6  Valerie Jarrett, please pick up the nearest white courtesy telephone....
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2012-11-16 13:19  

#5  Who changed the CIA talking points
The changed talking points were embargoed until Bama O'Bama could get a chance to leak them in his own favor.
Posted by: tipper   2012-11-16 13:16  

#4  #3 Because he mistakenly thought he was still on Champ's team!

That was more likely the case back on September 13, when he gave his initial briefing. I assume the situation has changed a bit since then.


Exactly
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-11-16 12:42  

#3  Because he mistakenly thought he was still on Champ's team!

That was more likely the case back on September 13, when he gave his initial briefing. I assume the situation has changed a bit since then.

My concern is whether Congressman King's updating the media was authorized or not. Last thing needed is another sideshow to this circus.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-11-16 12:37  

#2  it must be enormously confusing to be a diplomat these days. there you are standing in front of the media - trying to stick to the talking points. and then the boss keeps changing the talking points on you.

it's almost getting to the point where people might have to go back ... to the facts. Heaven forbid :-)
Posted by: Raider   2012-11-16 11:37  

#1  If he did, why did Petraeus change his testimony?

Answer: Because he mistakenly thought he was still on Champ's team!

Who changed the CIA talking points, removing the evidence an al-Qaeda element was likely involved in the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans?

Answer: My best guess would be National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and the Champ himself.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-11-16 11:23  

00:00