Dems, GOP spar over Petraeus testimony on Benghazi

Former CIA Director David Petraeus gave closed door briefings to Congress today that focused on not on his affair or his resignation, but on the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and when exactly U.S. officials knew there were terrorist elements involved.

After the hearing, Democrats and Republicans disputed whether Petraeus has been consistent in his testimony, and whether the CIA talking points on the attack were altered.

One Republican, House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, told reporters that the original CIA talking points regarding the attack clearly attributed the incident to al Qaeda affiliates, but that the talking points were changed after being vetted by several agencies, including the Justice Department and State Department. "No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final talking points," King said.

Play Video

Petraeus testified CIA story on Benghazi changed, King says

Play Video

CIA knew Benghazi attack was terrorism within 24 hours, Ruppersberger says

"The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out," King continued. Originally, he said, they were "much more specific on al Qaeda involvement."

Later Friday, the White House denied making any move to censor any mention of terrorism in Rice's Benghazi talking points.

"The talking points about the intelligence assessment that Susan used were produced by the Intelligence Community," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement. "The White House and State Department offered one edit, changing consulate to 'diplomatic facility' for accuracy."

Petraeus told lawmakers today that he consistently told Congress that there were terrorist elements involved in the attack, which led to the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans. King, however, said he remembers Petraeus' Sept. 14 testimony differently.

"I told him... I had a very different recollection of that," King said.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., didn't agree with King's recollection of the Sept. 14 briefing.

Ruppersberger told reporters after the hearing, "My recollection was ... [Petraeus said] it was the result of the protest... but he also said in the group there were some extremists and some where al Qaeda affiliates."

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., "Gen. Petraeus as director of the CIA has been completely consistent."

Conrad, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that much of the confusion is due to the difference between classified and unclassified information.

"When people are talking in a classified setting, they can say much more than they can say in an unclassified setting," Conrad said.

• Lawmakers get first look at Benghazi attack video
• Timeline: How Benghazi attack probe unfolded

The CIA talking points are a source of controversy because U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used them to describe the nature of the attack on CBS' "Face the Nation" and other shows on Sept. 16. Republicans have attacked Rice, who is considered a possible nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, for suggesting the attack was the result of spontaneous protests.

CBS News obtained the CIA talking points given both to Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15, and they make no specific reference to "terrorism" being a likely factor in the assault. However, they did indicate that "extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[Andy132184]

All I see and read about are talking points from the Benghazi attack. I can give a damn about the talking points right now. What I want to know is why trained Navy Seals would paint a mortar position without having some kind of support asking for the the information to help with target acquisition. I do not get this and it seems to just passing by. Why is this not being questioned? It makes it sound like these seals died because of stupidity in combat and I don't believe that is the case. There wasn't an armed drone overhead requesting this, or an unarmed drone requesting it for a nearby ship to supply fire support; this just sounds wrong. Someone help me understand why we are not investigating this.

[iAceMadman]

America was mislead about the terrorist attack, because surely if they had they would have voted for Romney. It was just another failure. Obama is supporting the affiliates of al Qaeda by downplaying their increasing of activity all over the world. They are everywhere, and it's Obama's fault. They are coming after us, and we need to have a war on terror to face them with increased military funding. Take it from an expert, Senator McCain is all over this and will provide clarity on this treachery by Obama,then it's time for the remove him from office.

For his first term, we needed to show how inept he was in the Presidency. Now we need to make sure in his second term that his is humiliated and has no legacy.

[lesliep4819]

This is so typical. How would the President be "humiliated" and have "no legacy?" If the country does poorly for the next four years. So people like madman here, and his Republican overlords, will do whatever they can to keep the whole country down, in order to humiliate a President they don't like. Seems to border on treason.

[cydygitt2]

As National Journal's Ron Brownstein writes, the Republican Party now finds itself in the same position that Democrats were in after 1988: searching for a way to broaden the party's appeal and message. (Or as former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour puts it, the GOP is in need of "a very serious proctology exam.")

---


Shouldn't the haters be out trying to rebuild the repubiCON party instead of just pushing more divisive politics of hate and discontent? How about that proctology exam that gov. barbour suggested that the GOP needed?

Turn off the fox/rush propaganda, because it's rotting your last few brain cells!

[ammo17]

when the government starts going behind closed doors you know they are very scared of being caught in a lie.we will never get the real truth unless we have a "transparent" government then maybe it can go "forward"we have congressman who are privy to the tapes of benghazi both democrat and republican,but we have two different answers to the same tapes.put this on c-span and let the country decide.personnelly i do not trust the government in d.c.and i cannot see this country getting any better unless we get it out of the shadows and into the light.

[marychgo]

Prediction: When all the investigations are completed, we will learn that the Benghazi tragedy was (as Democrats have been saying from the beginning) a BOTH/AND situation, not (as Republicans McCain and Graham insist) an EITHER/OR situation.
Was it "terrorism"? Yes. Were extremists involved? Yes. Were people tied to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb involved? Probably yes. Were some participants motivated by the Cairo demonstration and the anti-Muslim video that motivated THOSE demonstrations? Yes. Were Susan Rice's statements on the chat shows accurate? Yes. Were her statements complete? No, because some information the intelligence community knew had not yet been declassified for release to the public. Is there a scandal here? No. Is there a tragedy here? Of course!

[iAceMadman]

Another liberal apologist for this incompetent administration.

[marychgo]

I made a prediction, IAceMadman. We won't know whether my prediction is correct or not until the investigations are completed. But you don't CARE about the facts: you're soo all-knowing that you can label me a "liberal apologist" and the Obama administration "incompetent" WITHOUT knowing the facts!

[GM525]

Perhaps the administration could have been more open in thier response to Benghazi or perhaps they could not have been due to some of the information being classified. While it is tragic that 4 Americans lost their lives in an attack that quite likely could have been avoided or defended better, where were those of you who are lambasting the Obama administration,when THOUSANDS of our soldiers were being killed and maimed in Iraq? We went there because we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, they apparently never existed. Where was your outrage then?

[Ftcain]

This is either a massive cover-up or massive incompetence, or both once again. Just like Fast & Furious Where is the outrage by the press and American people? In Watergate nobody died, in BenghaziGate 4 brave Americans were murdered on 9/11 and this president and Hillary could not get them in the ground fast enough. Where were their state funerals to celebrate their ultimate sacrifice? Rosa Parks gets laid out in the rotunda like a president and those that died in Benghazi get nothing? This is the worst cover up in 40 years and the state owned media is silent. Where are the hundreds of reporters digging up all the emails, memos and insider information that they did trying to get dirt on Sarah Palin? The mainstream media today is just like it was in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany - nothing but a propaganda wing of the Democratic party!

[tdemex]

Libya an unstable country....?Why was he there at a consulate?....While the Embassy is in Tripoli where the protection IS/ So when the the GOP cut 300 million dollars for more protection....that means.... nothing it's as all ways Obama s fault....DUH! Read it again this time digest the real truth!....

[dscvrths]

Never once for over a month did obama say it was a terrorist attack committed by alkada type groups, but what he did say it was an act of terror
which could mean any type of terror like armed bank robberies, vandalism, shootings etc, anywhere. Instead he blamed it specifically on a video. There is quite a difference between the two.

[Rafterman11]

AIRBORNE_INFANTRYMAN1968 says: All they want to know now is what you and Obama are going to give them on the Taxpayer dime.

-----------

...and Infant so eloquently describes in one sentence why the GOP lost the election - belief in that myth.

From one of your own:

"America is not a society divided between "makers" and "takers." Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement...The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance, the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line. To gain three yards is a big play."

----David Frum, GOP Strategist

[Ftcain]

Politicians and parties lie, Economics does not. We are beyond insolvent and bankrupt. At some point the checks to all the government parasites will stop coming and then we will have anarchy in the streets. Both parties know this, and one is trying to avoid this, while the other just wants to wear the conductor hat and keep the gravy train of "free stuff" chugging down the tracks until it goes over the fiscal cliff of unsustainability. The Democrats have their coalition of fringe elements that now constitute a majority, they have to keep feeding the welfare/entitlement beast they created in return for votes and political power. Ever newer sources of tax revenue have to be found or they know what will be the consequences when their supporters turn on them for not providing them with cradle to the grave government assistance they promised!

[westerly1]

If John McCain and his followers would stop trying to eliminate their arch enemy "Lex Luthor" Obama, maybe we could get back to the real issue. Why did we not have more security at the Embassy & Consulate? Especially since the CIA knew Al Qaeda operatives were active.

[nearl451]

Yes. That's it. Rational thought does reside somewhere on this board.

Sure there was a screw up. Find out what went wrongand fix it.


Pretty simple, but it's so much easier to retreat to our usual partisan couches and lob accusations.