HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Petraeus testimony on Ben...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:11 PM

Petraeus testimony on Benghazi contradicts previous House statement

Source: AP


Former CIA chief's testimony that attack was work of extremists goes against previous statement about US-made film

Associated Press in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 November 2012 14.47 GMT

Former CIA director David Petraeus was sneaked into the Capitol on Friday, away from photographers and television cameras, to face lawmakers' questions for the first time about the deadly attack on the US consulate in Libya just one week after he resigned over an extramarital affair.

The retired four-star army general, formerly one of the country's most respected military leaders, entered through a network of underground hallways leading to a secure room. CIA directors typically walk through the building's front door.

Petraeus is under investigation by the CIA for possible wrongdoing in his extramarital affair, though that is not the subject of Friday's closed-door hearings. The 11 September attack in Benghazi, which killed the US ambassador and three other Americans, created a political firestorm, with Republicans claiming that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence.

Representative Peter King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, emerged just after 9am to say the hearing before his committee was over. He said there were discrepancies between what Petraeus had previously told the committee about the Benghazi attack and what he said on Friday. King said that earlier, Petraeus had said it was principally a reaction to an anti-Muslim video produced in the US; on Friday he said it was an attack by extremists.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/16/petraeus-testimony-benghazi-contradicts

26 replies, 5149 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Petraeus testimony on Benghazi contradicts previous House statement (Original post)
DonViejo Nov 2012 OP
BlueManFan Nov 2012 #1
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #15
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #2
1springhill Nov 2012 #4
leveymg Nov 2012 #11
former9thward Nov 2012 #5
dennis4868 Nov 2012 #10
former9thward Nov 2012 #21
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #18
OKNancy Nov 2012 #3
LiberalArkie Nov 2012 #6
frazzled Nov 2012 #12
McCamy Taylor Nov 2012 #7
FreeBC Nov 2012 #8
dennis4868 Nov 2012 #9
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #13
Sedona Nov 2012 #14
Milliesmom Nov 2012 #16
AAO Nov 2012 #17
bupkus Nov 2012 #19
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #20
LineLineLineNew Reply I
John2 Nov 2012 #22
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #24
PoliticAverse Nov 2012 #23
lib2DaBone Nov 2012 #25
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #26

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:13 PM

1. Voice of Reason That He Is

....I eagerly await Wingnut King's bloviations about these important matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueManFan (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:47 PM

15. LOL here in NY we have to hear him all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:22 PM

2. Help me understand ...

King said that earlier, Petraeus had said it was principally a reaction to an anti-Muslim video produced in the US; on Friday he said it was an attack by extremists.

Five days after the attack, the administration sent UN ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday news shows to describe it as a spontaneous protest. Rice relied on initial intelligence that proved incorrect,


How does that contradict previous House statements?

If I say, "It is 'A'." And I tell you, "It is 'A'." And you report, "It is 'A'." Then, I discover it is "Not 'A'." And you go back and say, "I know I said it was 'A', but currect information has it as Not 'A'." How does that contradict anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:31 PM

4. But she never said it was just a spontaneous attack. Sheesh!

On Face the Nation, Rice stressed, several times, that she didn’t yet have all the facts. But when gave the current assessment, she seemed to say that the serious violence started when extremist elements (i.e., militants) arrived on the scene with heavy weapons:
RICE (9/16/12): But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what— It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.

But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
In Rice’s account, a spontaneous protest was underway when heavily-armed extremists showed up—militants. That’s when the real violence started.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1springhill (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:00 PM

11. She did claim, however, that the attack was "not premeditated"

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated
Source: ABC News

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/

4


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:32 PM

5. Petraeus said he immediately thought it was "not A".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:53 PM

10. it doesn't matter what he thought..

the intelligence given to the WH said it was a spontaneous reaction to a video with militant groups getting involved. That's exactly what Susan Rice said on the Sunday morning talks shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dennis4868 (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:07 PM

21. Well that is the whole bone of contention....

What exactly was the intelligence given to the WH? That is what hearings are for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:04 PM

18. Your sensible, logical thinking is just beyond the mental capacity of King.

He is not a very bright man. I'm sorry to say that. I know he would be hurt by that. But it is an undeniable fact. I do not say it as an insult but rather as an observation based on his many strange, naive statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:27 PM

3. Maybe the Repubs are going to try to wiggle out of this embarrassing crap they have thrown

by blaming Petraeus. That way, since he is gone, they can save face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:33 PM

6. If I say it was the drivers fault when the Prius ran a stop light and ran over someone,

But then it is found out that the Prius had a fault in the computer and the driver could not control it. Is is still the drivers fault or is it the cars fault?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:04 PM

12. ??


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:45 PM

7. This is the GOP attempting to divert attention from their massive defeat at the polls.

Period. So let's talk about the GOP's massive defeat at the polls instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

8. So King is saying that clears up any implications of a White House cover-up?

 

Isn't King saying exactly what the White House has been saying all along? That the CIA originally suggested it was one thing, then it turned out to be something different?

If this is supposed to support the republican conspiracy theories I don't see how. Are they now implying that Petraeus was originally lying under orders from the President? That would require several new layers of tin foil for their head gear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:52 PM

9. SO THE AP WORKS FOR PETER KING

if Peter King says it - it must be true and lets make it a headline! WHAT THE FUCK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:17 PM

13. No surprise that. Just means Petraeus read the same CIA brief as Susan Rice.

As did everyone else involved. Leaving all of the Republicans shouting "cover up" with a big pile of steaming shit in their tighty whities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:44 PM

14. That would have been King's comment no matter what was said in the commitee. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:59 PM

16. "The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/david-petraeus-libya_n_2144621.html


Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

"There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said after the hearing. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea."

Schiff said Petraeus said Rice's comments in the television interviews "reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly."

King said Petraeus had briefed the House committee on Sept. 14 and he does 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."

Lawmakers said the affair with Broadwell that ended Petraeus' widely respected career came up only briefly at the top of Petraeus' 90-minute appearance before the House committee.

"The only thing he did in the beginning of his testimony is he did express deep regret to the committee for the circumstances for his depature" and reassure the committee that the Libya attacks had nothing to do with his resignation, said Rep. Jim Langevin, R-R.I.

Petraeus sneaked into the Capitol away from photographers and television cameras to provide his testimony before the House committee, which met in a secure room several floors below the main area of the Capitol Visitors Center where tourists gather when they are visiting Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:04 PM

17. These repub cretins have their heads so far up their asses, it will be fun watching them

with shit all over their faces in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)


Response to bupkus (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:00 PM

20. Petraeus' initial statement ...

wasn't testimony, it was a status report.

But even so, what the media is not reporting is the "sanitized" briefing points provided to Dr. Rice intentionally excluded the AQ language (and added the "extremist" language) because the CIA was actively on the hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:55 PM

22. I

 

have a question for the CIA though which did come under Petraeus's control considering keeping the consulate intact for an investigation. The first thing you do is close off the site. So why did a CNN correspondant have access to the site and gain possession of Chris Stephens' Diary? That should have been evidence and she shouldn't even had access. This correspondent also work with Fox. FOX was one of the earliest news organizations reporting AL Qaieda also way before it was determined it might have been a Terrorist attack. Just look at the timeline of events. The only intelligence agency on the scene first was the CIA. The FBI did not get access apparently until Oct 3. So why did this reporter have access to a crime scene that was supposedly under the CIA's control. Just look at the Protocol for investigations under the Department of Justice. Wouldn't this be a breech by the CIA's protocol? And why was she able to take evidence from the scene which would violate procedures for securing evidence?

Shouldn't the CIA had been on the scene first and secured it after the attack? And some of the different accounts came from Libyan government officials. Their story kept changing. The first accounts of a crowd came from Libyans who were on the scene first and some of them were attached to the government in libya if you look at their accounts. It changed over time. At first they blame it on former Ghadaffi Loyalists. There is also mention of a CIA annex not far from the consulate responsible for the security of the consulate. Chris Stephens was not killed immediately but was found and taken to a hospital. It was a Libyan physician that pronounce his death. Another question is the roles of the two seals which died. Did they have any connection to the CIA? The CIA's role just smells to me and their cozy relations with certain GOP Congressmen. They seem very protective of Petraeus's reputation also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #22)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:34 PM

24. Fox News seems to have more information about the CIA operations than anyone...

and that should raise red flags all around. Broadwell gave a shout out to Fox during her infamous speech. Feinstein was kept totally in the dark, and she was angy about that. Is it possible that Obama himself was kept in the dark and Petreaeus was running, more or less, a rogue operation? No wonder he stepped down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:26 PM

23. "Petraeus was not asked to testify under oath, King said."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:37 PM

25. Characters worse than those in the Star-Wars Bar...

 

from what I heard... Ambassodor Stevens was given the task of negotiating with a group of hard core Al Queida paid mercenaries that was far worse than any characters seen in the Star Wars Bar Scene.

The CIA was on site... pumping money and shoulder fired rockets to Al Queida to overthrow Syria.

So yes... connect the dots..... the U.S. is funding BOTH sides of the War On Terror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:40 PM

26. flip flop flip flop.......Is Petraeus related to Rmoney??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread