Former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus gave closed-door briefings to Congress on Friday that focused not on the developing sex scandal that led to his resignation, but on the September attack on the US Consulate building in Libya which killed four Americans.
Petraeus maintained that he consistently referred to the Consulate attack as the work of terrorists when talking to Congressional intelligence committees and other government agencies of the Executive Branch.
“I told him…I had a very different recollection of that,” said Republican House Intelligence Committee member Peter King to reporters after the briefing.
“The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out,” King continued. Initially, he said, they were “much more specific on al Qaeda involvement.”
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, (D-MD), on the other hand, disagreed with King’s recollection of the Sept. 14 briefing.
Ruppersberger said, “My recollection was…[Petraeus said] it was the result of the protest…but he also said in the group there were some extremists and some where al Qaeda affiliates.”
The controversy over when the Obama administration knew it was the work of terrorist groups and when they decided to tell the American people will continue far beyond this initial Petraeus testimony.
The issue has become a political football with Republicans using it to trip up the Obama administration and block potential nominees like UN envoy Susan Rice, who is thought to be considered for the position of Secretary of State in Obama’s second term and who has been accused of giving inaccurate public accounts of the incident.
Why does this pic show Mr. Petreaus in his military dress. He testified in a suit as a civilian which he has been since he retired and became Chief of the CIA?
Yeah, it was terrorist alright, the U.S. government.
agreed
And Betrayus Petraeus should know since it was his agency that created, funded & trained Al Qaeda.
Which is most phony: the uniform, the hair dye, or the wedding ring? Answer: none of the above; it's the words coming out of his mouth.
So when they are going to grille Hillary Clinton on the senate floor wanting her to testify what was her relation supporting these terrorists all over northern Africa and in Middle east, especially what is known to be the "foreign jihadist, Al Qaeda fighters in Syria. After all she did bet on changing the Syrian government but she never mentioned by who…, because the majority of the Syrian people have no desire to change their government nor wanting for these elements of destructions to be part of their social life telling them what to do.
Are they ever going to grille her, or merely give her a light roast?
I had a conversation last Sunday with an old friend from lovely Detroit.. He is a big Fox Neuz mavin. He said that maybe the donut will be impeached for his handling of the Bengazi incident……… When I replied that Bush let 3000 Americans and the World Trade Center get dead…. His reply: This is serious! And then he hung up on me… He was implying that the Bengazi situation was more serious and egregious than the Bush indifference about the Aug. 6 2001 briefing at the start of his vacation. The CIA briefing's headline was: Osama Bin Laden is planning to attack in the US (see August 6, 2001), but Bush spends the rest of that day fishing. By the end of his trip, Bush has spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route. [Washington Post, 8/7/2001]…………..
It's only in a decadent country like the US that anyone would pay any attention to what a mass murderer like Petraeus may have to say.
Even the corporate media is reporting today that such nonsense was made up for purposes of the press release. I wonder if this debacle is what has ousted our precious Gen. Warmonger from his cushy job and demoted him to the ranks of "consultant" for the Pentagon and "special correspondent" for FAUX NOISE.
Help me out, folks. Was there NO reaction in Libya, or in particular in Beghazi, to the internet posting of rage about the 'video' by Muslims on 9/11 and the day before? is it possible that there was nevertheless someone in the WH smart enough to think of claiming that some such thing had happened, JUST to stall accountability for losing a CIA firefight? Ambassadors do not reside at consulates, benghazi was a hellhole of CIA operations trying to spy on and/or deal monetarily with strong militiae who had been hostile to US/Europe interests. Any concerns about 'security' would have been appropriate for the embassy in Tripoli, but a safehouse in Benghazi? We never even learned by Stevens made the trip that day, except that he 'loved the Libyans'. Seriously, aside from Ken Starr-like vengeance, what's the brief against the administration here? Once you crap all over a country from the sky to change their leadership to suit yourself, you are not gonna have a good time scooting around their secret ammo dumps.
The attack on the CIA black hole torture/rendition site seemed to be by Libyans freeing other Libyans being illegally held there.
Just who were the terrorists?