WASHINGTON — Former CIA director David Petraeus said Friday that a reference to possible al-Qaida connections was dropped from “talking points” used by the Obama administration in its initial accounts of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to a Republican lawmaker.
“It’s still not clear how the talking points emerged,” Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House intelligence committee, said Friday after a closed-door briefing for the panel by Petraeus. “No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points.”
The possibility that references to potential terrorist links were taken out of the account may further fuel Republican criticism of President Barack Obama’s administration for its early description of the attack as developing from a spontaneous demonstration. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the assault.
While Petraeus told the House panel Friday that he didn’t know how the reference to al-Qaida connections was dropped from the talking points, the former CIA chief said the memo went “through a long process” with other federal agencies involved, according to King.
Democrats challenged King’s account after Petraeus met in consecutive briefings for the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said “the intelligence community had all signed off on” the talking points. He said the version used in public may have been “at variance” with one that contained classified information.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., also said “they went from a classified version to an unclassified version, and that’s why it was changed.”
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice depended on the intelligence community’s talking points when she said on Sunday talk shows Sept. 16 that the assault developed from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video that was “hijacked” by militants, according to the administration.
Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, said Sept. 28 that the intelligence community had revised that assessment.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the intelligence committee, said after a closed session Thursday that the panel saw a “composite” film that showed the Libya attack taking place “in real time.” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., said Friday that Clapper was working to declassify the film, which McKeon called a “45-minute recap” of the attack, to make it public.
Petraeus resigned as CIA director Nov. 9 after an inquiry by the FBI disclosed he had an extramarital affair. Petraeus told the House committee Friday that his resignation was an honorable response after his “dishonorable” behavior, according to Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla.
Feinstein said the Senate panel didn’t press Petraeus to discuss his affair because “we wanted to spare him that.”
Dozens of reporters and photographers who gathered for the Petraeus briefings never saw him. They were kept at a distance from the House and Senate meeting rooms by Capitol Police officers, and the retired general came and went through back entrances.
Debate over Rice’s account of the Benghazi attack have produced a political storm over the prospect that Obama may nominate her to replace the departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he is “adamantly opposed and will do everything I can to keep her from getting confirmed.” Republican colleague Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made the same vow.
Obama rebuked McCain and Graham during a press conference during a press conference on Nov. 14, saying Rice has done “exemplary work” and that “to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”
Feinstein said Friday that Rice’s Republican critics are trying to “assassinate” a possible nominee. “We take issue at that,” she said.
They knew the truth from the beginning but still used the excuse “it was the video” for weeks after the attack. Who in the Obama administration came up with the idea of blaming this on an obscure 3-month old video to distract from the truth that this was a coordinated terrorist attack? This goes much deeper and the truth will come out in the end.
don’t you think that Obama ordered the murder of the ambassador employing Obama’s Muslim brothers in
Al Queda? clearly that’s what happened.
I heard it from Glenn Beck Bill O’Reilly Michael Savage and Sean Hannity and Fox News.
fair and balanced.
I understand that your post is purposefully facetious but it’s also misleading. None of those sources that you mention uttered anything of the sort. No, I do not believe that Obama ordered the murder of ambassador Stevens but I do believe he has been extraordinarily disingenuous in his explanation of what happened. So the question is “Why?” Why not be forthcoming from the beginning? Why the approved talking points full of lies? We’ll know soon enough.
“sources”, ha ha ha
You are lying, You did not hear one of the above say anything of the sort. You are a liar.
I just joined the Tea Party where lies are truth and truth are lies
Get with the program or get out of the country.
i figured you as the ‘Occupy” type, loud, unemployed, living in your parents basement with no clear direction other than jealousy for those that have something you don’t which in your mind justifies a call for class warfare against the wealthy. You seem to support that assumption everytime you post a comment.
You figured wrong Teabilly. And further I could care less what you figure or think.
What’s the matter, do I get under your thin skin.
lol
That “living in your parents’ basement” means nothing. It is unoriginal and shows your lack of thought and independent thinking. It sounds like a Fox news talking point. You have nothing there.
You are in the opinion that I lack the ability to have an independant thought process, you are wrong. People like you think that because someone is conservative and or Republican that we can only regurgitate what is heard on Fox News, all the while you have people like Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman as the media represenatives for your liberal point of view.
Sorry you struck out again. No cable. We do not watch the people you listed there.
I’m truly amazed at this bumbling administration’s attempts to cover for a failed American foreign policy in the dirty name of electioneering.
It’s a sad day in this country when the leader of the free world will ignore pleas for help and took steps that resulted in the deaths of four brave Americans.
Yep, it was the movie. Now the cry is poor Susan Rice is being attacked because she is female and it is racism. And WHO put her words in her mouth? Why did the admin send her out to say what she said? Who told her what to say? This president either didn’t act or was ignored. Either way HE is resposnible or incompetent. Every major news media went crazy for months about Valery Plane, yet they are ignoring this attack on our embassy as just a political ploy. The media is a disgrace and so is this president.
Gee, I am so surprised that the administration would do anything like that!
Gee, I am so suprised the RW would continue to lie everytime they open their collective mouths. They are just like a spoiled child who did not get their way.
This Benghazi ‘scandal’ is nothing more than a place for Republican’s to act out their frustration about losing the election. It’s long past time to move on. Only 65 days until Obama’s second term begins!
It’s right up there with people saying that GWHB was flying in an SR-71, with more gold bullion than that plane could ever hope to carry, to ensure the hostages would be freed after the election.
I will bet that the families of those killed would not agree with your foolish and lefty comment, it’s not about the political issues. or a party of this or that.. it’s about protecting our citizens.. and the Commander in Chief giving the correct order to protect our citizens. that did not happen.. as it turns out there was a stand down order.. something that we never ever heard in vietnam, or anywhere else there was aggressive action against us, there is no where to run for this President.. he is weak and inexperienced.. and he cost lives because of it..may I suggest that you move on.. sweep it under your liberal rug.. and be done with it while the rest of America tries to figure out why a president would act in this way.. you devotion is petty, you loyalty misplaced, and you attitude is disgusting..
The Vietnam war ended because the US stood down. Nixon had them ‘bug out’.
People are still trying to rewrite history.
Apples and oranges, the Viet Nam war had dragged on for years with no end in sight and no definition as to what could be considered a victory.
There was no such “stand down” order. Obama did not learn of the attack until 74 minutes after it started, the CIA has said that it had a rapid response team ready in 24 minutes and that it took 1 hour to get a drone to the scene, plus the CIA has stated that it did not ask for help. How could anyone respond to something they had no knowledge of until after it was already over.
Stop getting your information from Rush, Hannity or Beck. They are liars.
Since the attack went on for about 7 hours, if you are right that Obama became aware of it 74 minutes after it began, he had more than enough time to figure out what was going on and order the rapid response team in. Instead, somebody gave a stand down order and a general who wanted to send troops in to reinforce/rescue those under attack was relieved of duty and placed under arrest. All Americans, especially the families of those left to fight/die on their own, deserve to be told the whole truth about who knew what and when, and WHO gave the order to stand down.
21:30 local time first shots fired.
22:00 local time Libyan reinforcements arrive at consulate.
22:30 local time Americans retreat to annex
01:00 local time American security forces arrive head to annex
02:00 local time Annex comes under attack lasts for 1 hour
04:00 local time Libyan forces relieve pressure on annex
08:00 local time Americans fly out of Libya.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578008922056244096.html
Where are you getting your information?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/military-timeline-from-night-benghazi-attack-begs-more-questions/
Try this link, I think you may find that this is a more accurate accounting of the events. This account also includes what was and was not taking place in Washington D.C. at the time as well.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
Try this one.
Not sure why you are leaving out a few details, like this event transpired over 6 or 7 hours, and much of it was viewed in real time. If the information is too sensitive to be released, that is fine. But if so, then that is what should have been stated all along, not the bit abpout the film.
Where is it that you are getting your information, it seems to be lacking some facts.
News reports of the official time line.
21:30 local time first shots fired.
22:00 local time Libyan reinforcements arrive at consulate.
22:30 local time Americans retreat to annex
01:00 local time American security forces arrive head to annex
02:00 local time Annex comes under attack lasts for 1 hour
04:00 local time Libyan forces relieve pressure on annex
08:00 local time Americans fly out of Libya.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578008922056244096.html
Where are you getting your information?
Time to move on. Are you so absolutely brain washed by the liberal left to think that this is just another bump in the road. The administration is lying about the events in Benghazi, there is so much more to what led up to this attack, the lack of response by President Obama and why they are trying so hard to make this seem as nothing more than what they need it to be. The President wanted the american public to think that the threats from Al Qaeda died with Bin laden, how would it look leading up to the election that they were dead wrong. This is not about the Republicans losing their bid for the White House, the calls for a full and complete explanation was being called for long before November 6th.
Foreign policy is a foreign topic with this clown. But 4 years of beg borrow and steal covered up by our liberal media makes us all ostriches…You can just imagine the shenanigans that have really been going on the past 4 years and finally one is reported.
The documents were changed Before they went out to multiple departments including the State Dept, Justice Dept, National Sec council and The White House…
Changed on who’s orders? I would say that the “talking points” were changed by the administration.
Classified information isn’t released to the public. No administration does that.
The fact that this was a terrorist attack is not what would be considered as classified information. Do not be so nieve to think that is why the talking points were changed by the administration, after the CIA put forth what they felt the true situation was. I feel more comfortable that the CIA knows what is considered classified versus what the administration thinks is more beneficial or less damning that close to an election.
The truth is our consulate was under attack from al-quida militants for 7 hours and the administration just watched from the situation room and did nothing to try to save our people! This is America….we could have toasted the attackers if our “leader” had ordered it!
The truth is that there was an initial attack that was over within 20 minutes, That is when the ambasdor died because of smoke inhalation and were takan, by Libyans to the nearest hospital (that was why his body was not found right away. A second mortar attack happened after 6 hours (up until then it was thought that the attack was over) that killed the two civilian defense contractors who were guarding the consulate until it could be given over to a Libyan force to defend.
Get the facts, not the treasonous lies of Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest of the RW mouthbreathing radio hosts
….and in between your “two separate attacks” everybody went home and got a good nights sleep, right? The ONLY thing in your above post that’s true is that the ambassador was killed relatively early in the attack, and so did the other civilian, and they probably couldn’t have been saved unless of course the ambassadors pleas for added security prior to the attack had been taken seriously. But the two brave ex Navy seals fought on through the night from the annex they had retreated to, and these two heroes deserved better than to be abandoned by their country when they needed us most.
Typical republican reaction, making a mountain out of a molehill.
You think the death of 4 U.S. citizens, one of them being an ambassador as a molehill ? Wow, what would it take for you to think something is serious?
How about the deaths of several thousand servicemen and women and untold civilians based on lies from the Bush Administration regarding WMD’s and Iraq’s inks to al-queda?
Where did I say that I considered the Iraq war was a molehill. Nice try at deflecting from the facts of what is going on at this time concerning Beghazi.
This was all black ops stuff gone wrong. First rule of CIA, we don’t talk about CIA stuff. The hill knows the truth, they know exactly what happened and who the players are, They just want to drag everyone through the mud because of last Tuesday.
What an idiotic statement to accuse anybody that is trying to get to the bottom of this, is only doing so because of election results. This started as soon as these terrorist attacks took place, remember right when the administration started lying about the facts of the attck. You should be ashamed to make such a comment.
Ahh yeah, I’m ashamed. The truth is, Congress, by law is briefed in classified session. They know everything. For as long as the U.S. government has been operating over seas, the public is not aware messy things that keep us safe. Some times they go wrong. I don’t expect any administration, whatever political side they are from to start social media dumping to please internet commandos. We will know 20-30 years from now what really happened.
Congress is briefed on only what the intelligence agencies want to brief them on. We as the general public do not need to know everything that agencies like the CIA are up to at all times, that would kind of defeat the purpose of an agency such as that. We can’t stand by and have the administration outright lie to us when it is so obvious that the facts dictate something so far from what their story is.
The Bangor Daily is abviously a “righty” newspaper, That’s not what I heared Petraeus say on TV yesterday.
You are correct. They took his remark way out of context. The way they have presented here is very misleading.
That always seems to be the answer from the left, oh that was taken out of context.
No, it is called looking at all of the facts. All.