WH Denies Deleting Reference To Terrorist Attack From CIA's Benghazi Memo

 

The White House has officially denied that it deleted references to a terrorist attack and to al-Qaeda from the CIA's memo on Benghazi, or that talking points provided by the CIA were changed to edit those references out.

Which of course directly contradicts what ex-CIA head General David Petraeus testified to in front of Congress on Friday, November 16th.

“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.

“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”{...}

“The main question today is that somebody briefed Susan Rice and she said she took the best information that the intelligence community had,” said Rep. Peter King (R-LI), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, probing the botched response. “Now we’re trying to put all the pieces together.”

But he added, “It’s going to be a long process before we find out anything else.”

What General Petraeus had to say on Friday directly contradicted what he told congress on September 13th, which was in lockstep with the White House line about a spontaneous mob attack sparked by a video. If General Petraeus is telling the truth now, did he dissemble back on September 13th because the White House informed him they knew about his extramarital hijinks and offered to keep it quiet if he played ball?

Did he change his story now because they didn't keep their word and outed him?

The president knew this was a terrorist attack with al-Qaeda involvement within 72 hours and almost certainly beforehand when he was briefed at 5PM Washington time by Secretary Leon Panetta. There was a drone overhead broadcasting what was going on to the Situation Room in real time, and phone contact between the consulate and the CIA annex telling the White House what was going on.Why did the president and major members of his Cabinet tell the American people a story about a spontaneous mob and outrage over a video for 8 days?

Why was the security at Benghazi removed in spite of Ambassador Stevens' request for more at the consulate?

Why were none of the military assets we had with easy reach of the consulate sent in to rescue our people? We had an ex-Navy SEAL in the CIA annex with a laser sight phoning in exact coordinates of targets that could have been taken out either by helicopter gunships or a unit of the Commander's In-extremis Force (CIF), a unit specifically designed for exactly these kinds of situations already deployed at our base in Sigonella, Sicily, less than a two-hour plane ride away. Why weren't they called in?

And what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi anyway? The city is a hotbed of  Islamist terrorists and al-Qaeda linked groups and we know from the ambassador's own journal that he knew he was on an al-Qaeda hit list.

Rep. King is entirely correct. This is like a bunch of children around a broken lamp, all saying 'not me'!

Eventually, we'll get the answers and it isn't going to be pretty.

Benghazi: 'Who Are You Gonna Believe, Me or Your Lying Eyes?"

 

Former CIA head General David Petraeus testified behind closed doors before Congress Friday, and what he had to say not only differed from what he told Congress back on September 13, but it raised new questions about the Benghazi debacle.

Back on September 13th, General Petraeus pretty much parroted the Administration line that this was an out of control mob incensed by a YouTube video. At that time, as we now know, the Obama Administration had full knowledge of the General's extramarital affairs and it's not out of the realm of possibility at all that he was promised his indiscretions would not be trumpeted publicly in exchange for his cooperation.

As I mentioned previously, the General is not the first high ranking DC figure to have been caught with an inappropriate part of his anatomy caught in the cookie jar, but this kind of public outing is quite rare.

If it was done after he cooperated and the election was safely over, it could only have been done with the idea of totally discrediting anything he had to say about what really happened, which gives what he had to say Friday an added kick.Especially if he was given private assurances by Congress that no charges would be filed for perjury.

The General is now claiming that he and the CIA knew from the very beginning that Benghazi was a terrorist attack primarily staged by al-Qaeda militia Ansar al Sharia, and that he issued a memo containing talking points to that effect that somehow got changed after they were distributed to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

No one seems to know exactly how that happened, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who were also questioned.

It's also leaked out now that the President was formally notified within 72 hours that this was a terrorist attack with al-Qaeda involvement.

He almost certainly knew this before then, because a drone was overhead and providing a live, real time feed shortly after the attack was reported, both the consulate and the CIA annex were in live phone contact with the White House and the president was personally briefed by SecDef Panetta at 5PM DC time.

Yet Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the president and White House spokesperson Jay Carney all pushed the narrative that this was a spontaneous protest over a video that just got out of hand:

Petraeus' testimony both challenges the Obama administration's repeated claims that the attack was a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to (Rep. Peter} King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.

"His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a "different recollection."

Still, the claim that the CIA's original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.

"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."

King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line "was taken out."

A congressional source familiar with this week's testimony also told 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 terrorists in the attack.

"It really changed the whole tone of it," King told Fox News.

The White House, of course is denying that anything was changed, and sticking to the new narrative that Susan Rice and other Administration figures were merely repeating info they were given 'based on the best assessments at that time'.

Which leaves us with this question: why, when President Obama knew within 72 hours (at the very latest, and almost certainly before then) that this was a terrorist attack did he and members of his administration continue to talk about a riot sparked by a video for over a week?

And if they really believed it was merely a riot, why not send in military assets we had readily available to rescue our people?

We had helicopter gunships within easy reach, and a unit of the Commander's In-extremis Force (CIF), a unit specifically designed for exactly these kinds of situations already deployed at our base in Sigonella, Sicily, less than a two-hour plane ride away.

There was even an ex-Navy SEAL with a laser sight in the CIA annex that was in live communication with the White House phoning in exact coordinates of targets.

Why weren't they sent, if the White House and this president really believed it was just a mob?

The obvious lies and outright misrepresentations to the American people about what did and did not happen in Benghazi r4esemble the way Fast and Furious was handled.

It remains to be seen whether either of these fiascos is going to be pursued in any meaningful way.

The Petraeus Affair Raises New Questions On Benghazzi

The David Petraeus sex scandal is resonating far beyond its original borders.

Since I wasn't particularly interested in the sleazier aspects of the story, my main thought was to wonder why General  Petraeus was  sandbagged in this fashion.

After all, plenty of men in high places have been caught with inappropriate parts of their anatomies caught in the cookie jar before, and while it may lead to resignations for various contrived reasons, it rarely leads to this kind of public scandal...unless somebody in power wants it that way. The general's little love triangle ( or is it a hexagon?) didn't need to be outed, especially since people leave White House  jobs in DC all the time after an election. Yet it was. Why?

Charles Krauthammer thinks he knows:



What Dr. Krauthammer is talking about is the fact that the FBI knew all about General Petraeus' extracurricular activities way back in May of 2012, yet he was allowed to continue in place until now, with the White House ignoring the national security implications of possible blackmail or security leaks.

While I originally thought that the delay was just to avoid embarrassing the president during election season, it looks like this goes even deeper.

It is, of course, an old tradition in certain political circles to collect useful tidbits like this and hold them in reserve for when you need them.If the Obama Administration in fact did that,it's a serious matter - a major security lapse allowed solely for political purposes.

But now, it appears that a question has been raised about whether Petraeus was promised a chance to resign gracefully or even to stay on provided he toed the Administration line about an out-of-hand mob incensed by a video..which is pretty much what he did in his testimony of September 13th.

But then the question remains..if this is how it went down and General Petraeus submitted and did what the administration wanted, why destroy him anyway?

I can think of reasons.

General Petraeus was never one of the president's Chicago circle, he's always conducted himself with honor, he's not particularly an Obama loyalist and as such, there's no telling when he might roll back over. This way, he's disgraced and discredited no matter what.

No matter what he says about Benghazzi when he testifies before Congress, it can now be ignored with a nudge, a smirk and wink by the regime and their media allies.

Not that I think the General is going to contradict his performance of September 13 all that much unless something special happens, like an offer of immunity. There is this thing called perjury.

What he will likely have, for now at least, is a few rough hours as congress parses his Libya Report to the White House, provided they can manage to pry it loose form the Obama Regime.

General David Petraeus Resigns From CIA, Citing Extramarital Affair

 

General David Petraeus resigned suddenly today as head of the CIA, citing an extramarital affair as the cause.

Here is the full text of Petraeus' letter:

HEADQUARTERS Central Intelligence Agency

9 November 2012
Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.

As I depart Langley, I want you to know that it has been the greatest of privileges to have served with you, the officers of our Nation's Silent Service, a work force that is truly exceptional in every regard. Indeed, you did extraordinary work on a host of critical missions during my time as director, and I am deeply grateful to you for that.

Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life's greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing. I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.
Thank you for your extraordinary service to our country, and best wishes for continued success in the important endeavors that lie ahead for our country and our Agency.

With admiration and appreciation,
David H. Petraeus

Mike Morrell, the deputy CIA director and a longtime CIA officer will take over for now as acting head. It's the first occassion in quite some time that America's premier intelligence agency has actually been run by a professional spook.

Petraeus, 60, has been married to Holly, née Knowlton, since 1975, after they meet when he was a military cadet at West Point and she was the daughter of the academy's superintendent.

It would be interesting to know how much of this was due to an affair and how much of it might have been due to pressure over the Benghazzi debacle.

Ah well.Petraeus was essentially a place holder at the CIA,with little power or input.

Hillary is said to be leaving soon as well,with UN Ambassador Susan Rice taking over in her place.

General Petraeus As Romney's VP Pick?

At least that's what Drudge is reporting that President Obama is saying:

President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!

"The president wasn't joking," the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.

A Petraeus drama has been quietly building behind the scenes.

Romney is believed to have secretly met with the four-star general in New Hampshire.

This gives rise to interesting possibilities.

President Obama could very well be saying this because General Petraeus, now essentially neutralized as the powerless head of our CIA, came to him directly, told him he had been approached and that he was considering it. This would be consistent with General Petraeus' character.

Or the president might simply have been speculating or lying, which again would be consistent with his character.

A Petraeus pick would provide Governor Romeny with an intelligent, respected and experienced running mate and a vice president, like Dick Cheney, with substantial experience in foregn affairs and national security who could perform Cheney's role in being the president's go to guy in critical foreign situations.

On the other hand, not being used to the political arena, I wonder how well he'd adapt to the necessary role of campaigner and attack dog. And of course, the Obama campaign would emphasize his connections with 'Bush's wars.' Let's not forget that when MoveOn ran that disgusting 'Petraeus, Betray us' , not one Democrat running for the nomination, including Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden and of course, Senator Barack Obama were willing to condemn it. Neither was Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.




In fact, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton and Senator Biden actively insulted General Petraeus when he testified before Congress in Washington, calling him a liar to his face.

A lot of people have forgotten that.

I also have my own questions regarding the COIN strategy, which proved useful chiefly in successfully quieting things down to allow an orderly retreat in Iraq. Given that General Petraeus, General Ordiano and the others who contributed to this outcome were given a mess to clean up not of their making, they did amazingly well, but I have concerns over whether they consider that a model for the war on jihad we're engaged in or whether they were simply making the best of a bad situation following limitations ordered by the Bush Administration.

Actually, if Romney wants a respected and accomplished military figure to run with, I'd suggest retired General Tommy Franks. Aside from lacking any baggage from the Bush years, he's an outstanding and eloquent speaker and a resident of Florida, where's he's quite popular.