Theodore's World: Petraeus Said CIA's Talking Points Were Edited to Play Down Terrorism ~ Order from Obama Maybe????

« Arizona Gun Store Owner Tells Customers: If You Voted For Obama “Your Business Is Not Welcome Here” | Main | References To “Al-Qaeda” Were Ommitted From CIA’s Benghazi Talking Points By Someone In The Obama Administration »

November 17, 2012

Petraeus Said CIA's Talking Points Were Edited to Play Down Terrorism ~ Order from Obama Maybe????

Petraeus Said CIA's Talking Points Were Edited to Play Down Terrorism

Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.

FNC’s Catherine Herridge: CIA TALKING POINTS (what was ‘changed’

“A congressional source familiar with this week’s classified testimony tells fox news that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from “al Qaeda affiliated individuals to extremist organizations” which had the effect of minimizing the role of a terrorists in the attack.

Also, that Ambassador Rice had access to classified and unclassified information about Benghazi, and by September 16th, could have easily verified that the State Department agents interviewed by the FBI in Germany said there was no demonstration at the consulate n 9/11.”

CIA knew all along Benghazi attack was terrorism, Petraeus says.

Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA’s talking points written in response to the assault on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S.
ambassador, referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers it was removed by other federal agencies that made changes to the CIA’s draft.

Petraeus said he did not know who removed the reference to terrorism, Rep. Peter King told reporters.

Mr. King said Petraeus had briefed the House committee on Sept. 14, and he did not recall Petraeus being so positive at that time that it was a terrorist attack. “He thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement,” King said. “That was not my recollection.”

Mr. King also said that to this day, it’s still not clear how the final talking points emerged that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack, when the White House sent her to appear in a series of television interviews.

Thank you Greta Van Susteren....she has been doing a great job on this.

I don’t buy it…: This is what is not believable. Today General Petraeus is saying, per reports, that he always .

This is why I don’t believe it…something remains fishy.

Today General Petraeus is saying, per reports, that he always thought it was terrorism.

But review the history:

On September 14, 3 days after the terrorism at Benghazi, he told Member of Congress the video / spontaneous protest story.

Today, November 16, he is saying (or massaging) his September 14 story and now saying he somehow meant to or tried to convey on September 14 that it was terrorism. Is that true?

Here is why I don’t believe it: if that were true, that he was committed to telling the American people the TRUTH on September 14, that it was terrorism and not the silly video story, why didn’t he LATER CORRECT the false story with a public statement (or even a private call to the other story tellers to stop them from doing it?)

He had so so so much opportunity to correct the record and he had to know what was being said by others and in the press and by Members of House and Senate. He could have corrected it publicly or even privately to those who continued the silly story to stop them. Why didn’t he?

Remember, the false stories CONTINUED after the 14th:

1/ Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16

2/ President Obama on Letterman

3/ President Obama on THE VIEW…

....and there are other times the silly story was pedaled. General Petraeus had lots and lots and lots of chances to STOP the silly story and to CORRECT the silly story. He did not.


Rep. Peter King: If I Had to Presume, I’d Say Someone in the Obama Administration Removed Al Qaeda References From CIA Talking Points on Libya Attack

In an exclusive interview, Megyn Kelly sat down with Congressman Pete King to discuss General Petraeus’ testimony this morning on the September 11 Benghazi attack, and particularly the talking points about the attack prepared by the CIA. According to King, the CIA’s original talking points on the attack specifically mentioned Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda’s involvement in the attack. King said, “They [the talking points] left the CIA, went through a whole process, which I believe included the White House, and when the talking points were finalized, all the references to Al Qaeda were taken out and it was put in almost as an afterthought saying there were indications of extremist involvement in the demonstration.”

The primary question at hand, according to King, is who changed those talking points and why. “If I had to presume, I’d say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out, because it was nobody in the Director of National Intelligence Office, nobody in the CIA that did it. So, it was someone else that did it. And I doubt if the State Department or the Defense Department or the Justice Department would be involved in taking that out,” he said.


Wild Thing's comment.....................

This all comes back to Obama and everyone knows it. Nothing happens in any administration without the person in the top signing off on it. It would be impossible for Obama to be in the dark about all of this.

Posted by Wild Thing at November 17, 2012 03:55 AM


Obama's only claim for fame for foreign policy was that he got bin Laden and Al Queada was no more. For him to admit that it was Al Queada who attacked the embassy would have shot his foreign policy fantasy all to hell.

Posted by: BobF at November 17, 2012 07:22 AM

Lies to cover up lies. Lies about lies. Lies because there is not a known answer. Lies when in doubt. Lies because the MSM will cover for you. Lies because lying is an addiction. Lies because that is the Alinsky way.

Posted by: TomR, armed in Texas at November 17, 2012 02:24 PM