Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

"To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and why. ... I'd say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out," King told Fox News. "That, to me, has to be pursued."

Petraeus left Capitol Hill around noon, after testifying in private hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees. In his wake, Republicans and Democrats battled over whether his testimony should raise more suspicions about the administration's handling of the attack.

King and other Republicans indicated they still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the strike.

"No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said.

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 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.

Democrats, though, suggested Republicans were taking the whole issue out of context.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said claims the talking points were changed are "completely wrong." Besides, he said, the affiliation of Ansar al-Sharia, the militant group suspected in the attack, to Al Qaeda is still being examined.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the discrepancy can be attributed to the classified talking points that some saw versus the unclassified version that others, like U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, used.

Lawmakers are focusing on the talking points in the first place because of concern over the account Rice gave on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16, when she repeatedly claimed the attack was spontaneous -- Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.

But a source said Rice had access to both classified and unclassified information on Benghazi. King said the administration has "hidden behind" the claim that Rice was only using the intelligence community's best assessment. But he said Petraeus' testimony suggests their best assessment conflicted with what Rice said on Sept. 16.

One source told Fox News that Petraeus "has no idea what was provided" to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.

"He had no idea she was going on talk shows" until the White House announced it one or two days before, the source said.

Obama in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism against Rice "outrageous" and told those lawmakers to "go after me" instead.

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice's defense Thursday, saying after a House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community's "best assessment" at the time.

"Those who have suggested that Ambassador Rice was politicizing the intelligence or misrepresenting what the intelligence community was putting forward as its best assessment are either unfamiliar with the facts, or willfully disregarding them," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/petraeus-to-testify-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-start-source-says/ 



Isn't it interesting that I've searched the regular MSM outlets, and no one else is reporting this? But as TW as stated over and over again "America has spoken", so we must assume that 52% of voters desire a president who's administration out right lies to the Amercian public so they won't look bad right before an election.

"Imagine if the Press would not have reported Watergate"

RN

How many people died in Watergate?



Imagine Nixon was Obama what would todays press do?

(Rhetorical)

Yea. This isn't in the press at all and watergate never would have been investigated had Nixon been a d.

We'll get to the bottom of this.

The silly thing about the grousing about the press in here is while they are biased, and they are, they will turn on who they are biased for in one second. Getting the scoop and being afraid someone else will is powerful to the point it makes them do stupid ****. They are not coherent enough to pull off a conspiracy (the press) and you also have biased news on the other side and independents everywhere (the internets etc). This lame stream press nonsense is silly rhetoric.

So if the prez wanted these 4 dead and could have stopped things but got some sort of benefit or jollies out of not doing so then covered it up in some dastardly plan I beleive we will find that out. (And yes I'm being extreme there and understand it may be something in between. Maybe driven by nefarious reasons, possibly good reason). .

But to jump to conspiracy/cover up theories immediately is pretty weak to me. It's ok and even desirable to leave no stone unturned, but to draw the conclusion without the evidence is a bit much.

Ready shoot aim.

And if wrong doing is found here there must be adequate consequences.

The folks screaming conspiracy should end up being exactly right or proven wrong with egg on their face.

Unfortunately no matter what the truth there will never be enough evidence for them and thus even if untrue it's a conspiracy.

Cheney flew the plane into WTC, birthers, Clinton death list and drug running, magic bullet, etc.

The world is skeery.

Imagine Nixon was Obama...hmmmm.....sorry just can't make that imagery happen.


Imagine Nixon was Al Green singing Lets Stay Together.

TW,
I found 3 MSM articles last evening on the Petaeus testimony, and none of them mentioned him saying anything about Al Qadea. Just a happy coincidence, eh?

For the record. Where do you get that I think the president wanted those 4 Americans dead? I think the mis-handling of this whole thing resulted in their deaths, but to imply that it was deliberate is insane. My real problem is the out right lying and attempt at a coverup. Nixon lied about, and attempted to cover up, a break-in, and had to resign in disgrace. Our current president lied about, and attempted to cover up an Al Qadea attack that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, yet the same folks who consider Nixon a monster want to give the current president a pass on this one. How about a little consistency?

Nixon's situation isn't even close to the present situation. It'smuch worse. He was involved in a burglary crime for personal gain. If you think what happened in Benghazi, was mishandled before or during the event, you may be right. but, I seriously doubt any President or U.N. Ambassador could have prevented it once it started. Ever think that this mostly involved an "undercover" CIA outpost/delegation, and that the CIA might be the first place to look into how it happened? In any event, Embassies in third-world and even first-world countries are dangerous places. When attacked, people can die not matter how good the security is. **** happens in this world. Everyone the had a job to do and knew they were in a very dangerous part of the world. Suppression of information early one would not have changed anything and the public need not know everything right away. There will always be government manipulation of information. That's the way it needs to be so things work.

I wasn't talking directly to you do. Just in general.

Do = dp

Thaere was help a mile away and they were told to stand down... after two hous they ignored the order and responded anyway... ther would have been more deaths had theynot.... maybe none if the would have been able to resond when they first heard the shots.... [😟

Thanks TW for clarifying that. For the record, the president's vision of America and mine are at odds. I feel the America he is trying to create will be detrimental to this great nation, and therefore, I will oppose those of his policies that I feel are at odds with the principles this nation was founded on. I don't think the guy is "evil" per say, as some may, but extremely misguided. He also shows strong Narcissi traits that are common in many dictators. These Narcissi traits prevent him from ever admitting that he is wrong. If I’m incorrect, and he has admitted error in any of his policies or actions, please correct me. I’m sure that even you would agree that Narcissism is an undesired and dangerous trait in any leader, especially one who is suppose to be the leader of the “free world”.

Robert,
You don't think that the attempted coverup and lies where for personal gain? He thought that the truth could be detrimental to his re-election bid. The lies and coverup where to protect his chances for re-election. If that's not for personal gain, then what is it?

No one died in the Watergate breakins. The Ambassador made repeated pleas for added security that were denied. Britain and a few other countries had already removed there people from this area.
We still have the greatest military in the world. Several options were only an hour away, how could they not do something but sit and watch ? Sorry but this is unacceptable and continues to show the world how weak this president is when it comes world affairs. Not a good thing as we watch the Middle East about ready to explode into war.

Now the cover up and back tracking and now the diversions of racism and hatred for women by the administration clearly shows there is something to hide.

Yeah no gains playing CYHBA before the election.

I don't think he WANTED those people dead but doing nothing when you can do something is letting people die.

So the government gets a free pass on lying as long as it is best, based security concerns?

Despicable.

Maybe 911 was a conspiracy? The government said is isn't, but they proved they are a nest of lying parasites.

Agreed with everything except for this ridiculous statement. Watergate was the mastermind of one weasel by the name of John Dean who selected a team of inept Cuban "burglars" headed by Liddy to recover an address book for whores- one of whom was Dean's g/f soon to be wife. Dean later turned evidence & pointed the finger at everyone except at himself. President's "personal gain" had nothing to do with it. Uncovering Democrat "dirty tricks" was a made up fallacy by Dean.

Unlike Obama & the Benghazi coverup, the eccentric Nixon had no premeditated knowledge of this break in into Democrats headquarters which was undermined by a janitor. Unfortunately, his subsequent Obama- like attempt to hide the truth was unraveled by foolish taping sessions meant for his memoirs. Mr. Nixon, like him or not, never attempted to point the finger at a silly video which hadn't been publicly viewed by most, OR at our secret intelligence community. No, however, all Obama did was ignore the frantic pleas of dying Americans in a consulate beseiged over 7 hours AND later trotting out a parade of somber- faced, lying nincompoops to misinform the electorate. He also ignored warnings that the Lybian consulate was under protected and badly in need of shoring up it's defenses months before the anniversary of 9/11. That's all. No big deal.

Obama's fantasy middle east policy involving his (personal) killing of OBL, defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Queda elsewhere, plus the helping to establish democratic governments everywhere remains sacrosanct and a legacy to protect in his clouded mind... What a delusional fool.

[sarcasm] [sarcasm] [sarcasm]

The election is over.

You really think everyone who cares about this would not care if the election was different?

Anyone close in your family serve?

I'll answer that z although its not directed towards me.

Yes. My family has a rich tradition of serving. Every generation, every war.

Right now, my son is enlisted and starts training in Oklahoma in February. My cousin is in Afghanistan, two of his three sons are also serving over seas.

These are the closest to me but not the only. I could mention other cousins, nieces, nephews etc but really only about 4 are who I consider close.

I could go back through both grandpas, virtually all of my uncles, and of course cousins and my fathers cousins all serving.

I've posted in here about my crazy uncle Louie and the battle of the bulge. I didn't mention all his medals just that he went crazy. I've also posted about my uncle Buster whose bombing team could not locate their return island and spent a week in a lifeboat in the pacific before a submarine found them.

We don't speak much about my uncle's experience in nam.

So what? I'd guess all of our families have similar stories. I don't post any of that for any other reason but to say in this context it doesn't lend credibility to anyone's opinion nor take it away.

To continue to ask that question of everyone that disagrees with you is pretty **** IMHO. It's akin to the folks that told people to question the Iraq invasion were unpatriotic etc. it's pretty cheap.

To the issue, I definitely want to know more. It is smelly and needs sunlight. I've not drawn conclusions yet because I do tend to want facts first. We don't have them but will. The more I hear the less comfortable I am.

But is also say some in here have gone from A to Z without the rest of the alphabet. Or at least blurred elemeno