| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 In Benghazi , Petraeus says al Qaeda role known earlyBy Susan Cornwell and Tabassum Zakaria | Reuters – 1 hr 56 mins ago....EmailShare0 … ....WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress on Friday that he and the spy agency had sought to make clear from the outset that September's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, involved an al Qaeda affiliate, lawmakers said. Petraeus told lawmakers "there were extremists in the group" that launched the attack on the diplomatic mission, describing them as affiliates of al Qaeda and other groups, said Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives intelligence committee. "The fact is that he clarified it," Ruppersberger said. Petraeus appeared behind closed doors before the House and Senate intelligence panels the week after quitting his CIA post because of an extramarital affair. He made no public remarks. Another lawmaker, Republican Representative Peter King, said Petraeus' account in the closed-door session differed from the assessment the CIA chief gave to Congress two months ago, just days after the September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. "He also stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there were significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14," King said. Petraeus last week admitted to an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Lawmakers said a somber Petraeus told them his resignation had nothing to do with issues related to Benghazi or any reluctance to testify before Congress. "The general did not address any specifics of the affair, of that issue," Democratic Representative Jim Langevin said. "What he did say in his opening statement was that he regrets the circumstances that led to his resignation." The assault on the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi has turned into a flash point between President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Republicans. Republicans accuse the White House and in particular the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, of misleading the public just after the attack by suggesting the assault was a spontaneous act instead of a planned terrorist operation. The Obama administration denies misleading anyone and says it discussed information about the Benghazi tragedy as it came in. Some Republicans have suggested the administration initially wanted to avoid the idea that it had failed to prevent a terrorist attack, which might have dampened the president's re-election chances on November 6. Obama has denied that implication. Petraeus, a retired Army four-star general, slipped in and out of the closed sessions unseen by a swarm of media. Capitol police cleared journalists and others from hallways where the former CIA director might have been spotted. 'BLAME IT ON US' ..Photos: Players in the Petraeus scandal NextPrevNext Go to page 1Go to page 2Go to page 3Go to page 4Go to page 5Go to page 6 . Photo By HANDOUT/REUTERS Mon, Nov 12, 2012Commander of the International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces in Afghanistan General David Petraeus shakes hands with author Paula Broadwell in this ISAF handout photo originally posted July ... more Commander of the International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces in Afghanistan General David Petraeus shakes hands with author Paula Broadwell in this ISAF handout photo originally posted July 13, 2011. The FBI investigation that led to the discovery of CIA Director David Petraeus' affair with author Paula Broadwell was sparked by "suspicious emails" from her to another woman and Petraeus was not the target of the probe, U.S. law enforcement and security officials told Reuters. REUTERS/ISAF/Handout (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: POLITICS MILITARY MEDIA) FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS less .."You can blame it on us," Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, told reporters who complained about not even seeing Petraeus. "The general was both eager and willing to give us his views on this, and his experience on it, and that's very much appreciated. ... We didn't want to make it any more difficult for him." Although he has left the CIA, Petraeus was asked to testify about Benghazi in part because he had gone to Libya before his resignation to interview people about what happened in Benghazi on September 11. Lawmakers appeared to treat the question of Petraeus' personal life with kid gloves. They said the questioning was sometimes awkward against the backdrop of the Broadwell scandal and because some of them have known Petraeus for years and think highly of his military service in which he ran the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. "I consider him a friend, which made the questioning tough, to be honest with you," King told reporters. "I've known him for nine years now. I actually asked him to run for president a few years ago," he said. Petraeus' affair has raised questions about whether any classified information was divulged to Broadwell that would affect national security. So far, FBI investigators have not discovered anything to suggest that was the case, law enforcement sources said. Democratic lawmakers emerging from the sessions with Petraeus said it was clear Rice had been speaking from talking points that were approved by the U.S. intelligence community when she discussed the Benghazi attack. In five Sunday talk show appearances on September 16, Rice said the assault was prompted by an anti-Muslim video and then morphed into a more violent act. But she also told CBS's "Face the Nation" that day that it was "clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence." "I don't think she should be pilloried for this," said Feinstein, who was carrying a copy of the talking points that were probably given to Rice and read them aloud to journalists. "She did what I would have done, or anyone else would have done, that is going on a weekend show. You would have said, 'What talking points can I use?'" Feinstein said. "It's almost as if the intent is to assassinate the character." Senator Saxby Chambliss, the intelligence committee's top Republican, told reporters the problem with Rice's talk show appearances was that she did not stick with the talking points she was given on the Benghazi attack. "She knew at that point in time that al Qaeda was very likely responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens," he said. Some senior Republicans have vowed to block Rice's potential nomination for secretary of state or another top Cabinet post because of her Benghazi comments. Rice is believed to be on Obama's short list to replace Hillary Clinton, who has said she intends to leave her State Department job. |
||
|
Stinky ... |
||
|
dmaestro 16-Nov-12, 16:56 |
|
||
|
This whole thing is the stupidest tempest in a teapot since the Fast and Furious hubbub. |
||
|
dm But, it seems that between his report and the report that got to Rice, it was changed into the report Rice gave on all the talk shows. So, somebody seems to have changed his report. This is going to get extremely interesting. |
||
|
dmaestro 16-Nov-12, 17:23 |
|
||
|
Softie It seems to me we are losing sight of what is important, that is capturing or (my preference) killing the people who attacked our embassy. Digging into the CIA to find out what they know, when they knew it and how they knew what they knew, is either a waste of time or dangerous to our security, depending on the degree of "success" achieved. We already have some floozy guessing that we ran a secret prison in Benghazi. I don't believe we were, and assuming the slut is wrong, this "investigation" is sinking us back into the sewer Bush had us jump into. |
||
|
Illi I think it important that we find out who knew up, when they knew it, how they knew it so we can determine WHY something happened. In this case all the questions lead back to the impression (that so far exists) that the State Department and the Administration denied security for Libya, in fact removed security from Libya, and then when they were attacked gave NO order to actually assist them or told assistance teams to Stand Down. Another question besides WHY is HOW do we prevent this idiocy in the future. But the main question is WHY did all this happen to begin with? The answer to that could range from sheer incompetence to willful and intentional negligence. It could be simply a matter of ineptitude in communication within government bureaucracies to political corruption and cover up. It could range from a few personal misdeeds and bad judgements to a systemic wide failure. So, the question is WHY and it could lead to many things. |
||
|
I think it is a valid question if there was something that was done or failed to do that cost an unnecessary loss of life. I think that is the only valid question. Any investigation should be confined to that question and that question alone. Instead, my fear is that this is going to become a political football with everyone substituting their judgment after the fact for the judgment of the people in charge. (You know that is where this is going). The w****mongering members of the Republican party have no regards for the interests of the United States if they can chalk up some minor political victory. |
Log in 
