Peter King: Petraeus Testifying that White House Took Al Qaeda References Out of Rice Talking Points

[Bolo Boffin]

The ratfuck is on:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15216937-petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack?lite

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Peter King, R- N.Y. told reporters Friday morning after Petraeus testified that the initial “talking points” from the Obama administration to prepare officials for what they should say publicly in the first days after the attack had been changed to delete references to any al Qaida involvement in the event.

At the very least, Peter King (R-IRA) is twisting what Petraeus said, and that could very well be it. But it could also be Petraeus doing as much damage on his way down as possible.

Fox News (find the link yourself) is saying this: "Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that "Al Qaeda involvement" was suspected -- but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

"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."

If you can get past the "determined AQ involvement was suspected" phrase -- how do you determine a suspicion? -- you see that what's actually going on here is the CIA sends info in, it goes through an interagency process, and the final talking points are produced based on all the relevant information at hand and considerations to be made. Petraeus knows this. King knows this. Fox News knows this. EVERY administration does this with raw information.

Now suddenly the internal vetting process is "vague" and being fluffed up by King (and possibly Petraeus) as some scandalous thing. And the Benghazi Truthers I see on Facebook and Twitter are already lapping it up.

[oswaldactedalone]

1. As far as Susan Rice goes

I can't see anything that she said was incorrect. The article says:

'Rice told NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press Sept. 16 that “putting together the best information that we have available to us today – our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo – almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”

She added that in Benghazi “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.” '

If she said this then what's the problem? From the news reports I heard at the time, this is exactly what they were saying happened.

[underoath]

9. huh?

so the video started demonstrations?

[hrmjustin]

10. What are your feelings about Susan Rice my friend?

[mfcorey1]

11. She used the information given to her. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.

[OldDem2012]

16. Hope you enjoy your stay. nt.

[uponit7771]

17. you're kidding right? reality doesn't hurt

[WinkyDink]

2. This guy's a traitor, and not just for this.

[ProSense]

3. No he didn't. The CIA

already indicated that the talking points included no such reference, and Petraeus did not dispute that.

<...>

"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."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/petraeus-due-capitol-benghazi-questioning

This idiot is spinning his ass off.

Rep. Peter King: Petraeus Said He Believed All Along Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-peter-king-petraeus-said-he-believed-all

[Bolo Boffin]

5. I'm willing to accept it's King spinning like a MFer.

Pulling stuff out of context and all.

But I don't trust Petraeus at all, not a damn bit. Unless he comes out and publicly repudiates what King has said, I'm keeping my eye on him.

[cleduc]

4. I'm confused by your headline

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15216937-petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack?lite

King said “I told him (Petraeus) that I honestly disagreed with his recollection of what he told us on Sept. 14” when the then-CIA chief initially briefed House Intelligence Committee members about the events in Benghazi.

Petraeus testified Friday “that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement -- and that is not my recollection of what he told us on Sept. 14,” King said.

Petraeus doesn't agree with King

[Bolo Boffin]

6. I changed the headline to make it clear that's coming from Peter King

But I don't trust Petraeus. We'll see if he yanks King's wig off later.

[OldDem2012]

7. Anything coming out of King's mouth is suspect. nt.

[JaneQPublic]

8. Bingo.

King is not a reporter; he's a partisan GOPer Congressmember. He probably had his talking points mapped out before Gen. Petraeus ever opened his mouth.

[dsc]

12. BTW for those who jumped down my throat about the need for public hearings on this

here is exhibit A. If this hearing had been public we would know what Patraeus said.

[Spazito]

13. I'll wait until someone with credibility says something....

King has NO credibility, he lies and lies and lies and lies again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Was that a closed door brief?

In other words classified?

Yup.

So there is no way to confirm this unless the relevant info is unclassified. That is Peter King for you. So he is revealing info that is classified, or is he lying?

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. First ...

It would seem that any Senate (or staff) running out and reporting on what was said in a "Closed Door" hearing/briefing is violating protocol, otherwise, why hold the "closed hearing/briefing"?

Secondly, even if what King is saying is true and accurate, leaving out the term AQ, and substituting extremist, would seem prudent at that point in time ... unless there was clear and undisputed evidence that it was, in fact, AQ. This exposes the idiocy of non-intelligence/non-diplomatic, agenda-oriented comments ... A good rule is you don't name names until you are absolutely sure that those you're naming are responsible.

[Spazito]

18. As it turns out, he was full of shit as usual...

Petraeus said no such thing, actually he said the opposite. The talking points, the vetted comments, vetted by the CIA to ensure only de-classified information was given, the talking points given to the committee itself PRIOR to Susan Rice's appearance was exactly what Rice said during her public appearance. There were NO changes by anyone, including by the White House and the whining committee members KNEW there was no difference right from the beginning.