HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Rep. King: CIA story on B...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:09 PM

Rep. King: CIA story on Benghazi changed

By Stephanie Condon /
CBS News/ November 16, 2012, 9:29 AM

... House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters that Petraeus insisted today that he was clear with Congress from the start that the event was a terrorist attack. However, King added, Petraeus said that after the CIA prepared its talking points, they were vetted by agencies including the Justice Department and the State Department, but "no one knows yet exactly who came up with the final talking points" ...

CBS News obtained the vetted CIA talking points given both to Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15, and they make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault ...

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., didn't agree with King's take on Petraeus' Sept. 14 testimony.

Ruppersberger told reporters after the hearing, "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 were al Qaeda affiliates" ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/rep-king-cia-story-on-benghazi-changed/

15 replies, 1981 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

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:14 PM

1. So, what is King's point?

He seems to want to make something of the CIA talking points changing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzteaze (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:21 PM

7. I think he wants to say that the State department took reference to terror and/or

Al Qaeda out of the CIA talking points. They desperately want to be able to say that Rice KNOWINGLY left out reference to terrorism in her first remarks. Or else that Obama deliberately made sure she didn't know to say terrorism.
Or something.
Even if she did - which she didn't - I don't know what their point is - how would going on TV and talking about any damn thing have helped the situation?
The GOP really should have had a couple of (attendance compulsory) planning meetings before they started to blather and obfuscate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:15 PM

2. What difference does any of that make?

What is important is what is our best information TODAY. Is there even any agreement on that? Were these al Qaeda members or just people who had some loose affinity with al Qaeda? Either way, how would that change how we go after them?

Why are we debating the earliest statements made by officials while information was still coming in? What is the point of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:15 PM

3. So he/CIA wasn't sure, as the outted Safe House would seem to make that uncertainty necessary.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:16 PM

4. Gen. Patreus, please repeat after me, "Susan Rice is NOT April Glaspie." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:16 PM

5. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:20 PM

6. Patreus had crowds yelling angry about a video, in Libya & in Egypt + outted CIA safe house in Libya

I'd be uncertain too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:23 PM

8. The GOP looks really desperate

and they're wasting valuable resources because she didn't say the murders had nothing to do with the raging protests going on simultaneously?

And what's he's them do sure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:34 PM

9. Part of Susan Rice's comments from talking points given to her. Never said it was just a protest.

What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:41 PM

14. This

 

is what it is, a goose chase by the GOP. They want to pin something on President Obama. It is a waste of time because the investigation itself is not completed. They are investigating the investigation and trying to morph it into a investigation of the Obama Administration. All you have to do is look at the instigators of the investigation, that people have fell for. It was initiated by congressman King,Issa,Chaffett, and John McCain. They got help from one Democratic Senator ( Feinstein) to keep ot going for cover. The main republican senators are John McCain,Lindsay Graham and the tea Party Senator from New Hampshire. The Pundits of course played their part to make it look like something is there. I'm not even in the loop but I can see the plot from outside of the loop. And this is not the main focus of the Public as the participants are claiming. It is a side show.

The bottomline is nobody tried to cover anything up or lied at all. That is their main allegations and they are throwing things at the Wall to try and make it stick. It is not going to stick because the Obama Administration appears to be clean. His administration has given us no reasons to distrust it. I wouldn't trust anything the characters above put out with maybe the exception of Senator Feinstein. But I'm curious about her. She needs to recognize a goose chase when she sees it. She needs to give the same trust to her President as she might have to those in the rightwing Republican Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:52 PM

10. Umm....that tends to happen

as people get more information. What a twit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:59 PM

11. +

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:14 PM

12. Translation: new facts came out

and they don't fit the repig narrative, so I'm sore and will accuse the CIA of lying to protect Obama -- Peter King (R-NY-Batshit crazy).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:15 PM

13. This Is What Happens When You Have A Closed Session Of Testimony.....

both sides can spin what they heard and the American People can't verify because it wasn't an open session where it can be recorded and viewed and verified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:41 PM

15. And now it makes sense

The GOP has been trying to cook something up to make their "inquiry" seem plausible AND create something for McCain to do. Why? Because as the highest ranking Rep on the Service Affairs Committee, he will lose his seat in Jan due to a term limit. There aren't many other choices for him UNLESS Benghazi turns out to be a bigger deal and into a newly formed committee.

The light gets brighter.....

Just four years ago, John McCain was the leader of the GOP. Today, he's the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a perch from which the former fighter pilot is deeply engaged in the national conversation over war, terrorism and intelligence gathering.

But in January, the Arizona senator will lose his top-ranking committee seat due to term limits. The only ranking Republican spot available to him next session will be on the Indian Affairs Committee.

Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee.
On Wednesday, McCain, flanked by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), proposed just that: a select committee with extensive authority to investigate the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the U.S. government's response.

The Republican most likely to hold the ranking spot on such a panel would be, of course, John McCain, giving the Arizona senator a new burst of relevance.

<snip>



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/john-mccain-benghazi-committee_n_2145457.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread