Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

Former CIA Director David 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.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who spoke to reporters after Petraeus testified before the House Intelligence Committee, indicated he and other lawmakers still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the attack.

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

Petraeus was heading next to the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify. At the same time, lawmakers unexpectedly convened a briefing with top members of various committees to examine a Sept. 25 letter to President Obama that asked a series of classified questions on Benghazi.

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…

…Lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees heard testimony Thursday in private meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell. But Fox News was told there were heated exchanges on the House side, particularly over the talking points that administration officials relied on in the days after the Sept. 11 strike.

Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized that information. And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.

Further, Fox News was told Morell was pushed to explain why, during a Sept. 14 briefing, Petraeus seemed wedded to the explanation that the attack was in response to an anti-Islam video. Morell apparently said he wasn’t at that briefing and had nothing further to add…

The complete article is at

RelatedFBI agent under review for conduct in Petraeus scandal is counterterrorism veteran

Related videos at FNC:

Source: Petraeus to testify Benghazi was terror…

Report: Petraeus’ last days at CIA were contentious

Update: Petraeus: Some Parts of Susan Rice’s “Presentation” Came From the White House, Not Intelligence, and Not Me And other Things Which Would Have Been More Useful To Know Three Weeks Ago…

Update 2: Brad Woodhouse, DNC Communications Director, Says ‘Give It a Rest’ On Benghazi: ‘We Won’

…These people are sociopaths.

Here’s more mind-boggling indifference to the truth: “Why are Republicans flipping out about Benghazi? Scandal envy.” Stupid dishonesty too. “Envy” means to covet someone else’s possessions. That’s not the point the writer’s making at the essay, Paul Waldman at The American Prospect, an epic asshole. Pure mendacity and moral bankruptcy. I can’t even — I won’t even — call these people my fellow Americans.

Read the whole thing.

Update 3Video: CIA to investigate Petraeus as he testifies? “Just another coincidence, I’m sure.”


Comments are closed.