AP: Petraeus believed terrorists behind Libya attack

[dennis4868]

Here is the money quote from the article:

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail. Petraeus also said it initially was unclear whether militants infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.

Also:

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Petraeus explained that the CIA's draft points were sent to other intelligence agencies and to some federal agencies for review. Udall said Petraeus told them the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it. "The assessment that was publicly shared in unclassified talking points went through a process of editing," Udall said. "The extremist description was put in because in an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved."

The entire article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-145946656--politics.html

[jberryhill]

1. That was my assumption too

"so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail"

I mean, were we supposed to announce that live, in order to give them a head start?

[dennis4868]

2. Peter King thinks so...

that guy is a nutcase but the media loves him much like they do John McCain...they take these 2 assholes seriously.

[jberryhill]

7. I guess the CIA should live blog everything they know

[RandySF]

3. I don't believe anything he says.

I'm sorry. He might be telling the truth. But after iraq I don't take anything he says at face value.

[dennis4868]

4. good point...

but I don't see why he would be lying here...he has nothing to lose.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Note to Yahoo.com:

I would say you title to this piece is deceptive, if I did not believe the deception was intentional.

[marshall]

6. Then why didn't he go out on the talk show circuit and air his opinion?

Why did it fall to Ms. Rice to carry the water that Petraeus should have been carrying to the American people???

[SleeplessinSoCal]

8. One way or another, this guy screws women.

[leveymg]

10. Rice carried water because the stories given out by DOS were contradictory as based in CIA info.

The State Dept had embargoed its own public statements (after contradictory reports were issued), the CIA wasn't making public reports (just contradictory reports to Congress and the Admin.), so Amb. Rice essentially volunteered to carry the ball and take the heat by becoming the public spokesperson.

The dilemma the CIA had was that it was reluctant to reveal that the Benghazi compound was essentially a CIA station for coordinating local Jihadis traveling to Syria along with looted Libyan heavy weapons, including antiaircraft missiles.

Rice did articulate what was essentially a falsehood that the attacks weren't "pre-mediated" and weren't "coordinated." But, that's really a distraction from the larger issue about the CIA and Amb. Stevens were doing in Benghazi.

[leveymg]

9. BS - This wasn't the first attack in Benghazi, and the groups had been publicly IDed previously.

And for our next stupid cover story. . .

[rainlillie]

11. I thought that from the beginning..

Why in the world would TPTB put out info that could derail their investigation and endanger other people. The stupidity by some is utterly amazing. I suppose next time the CIA or FBI should just post what they're playing on doing on a public forum.

[marshall]

12. Or at least inform each other

Even if it's only at the highest level, the right hand needs to know what the left hand is doing (or the head needs to know what the ass is doing, to use another body analogy).