CNN is reporting that a well-placed source has indicated that CIA Chief David Petraeus will ‘amend’ his previous testimony, telling Congress that he knew the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was terrorism, and that he knew this “almost immediately”.
Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
By ultimately, they mean several weeks later. This is definitive proof that Obama’s White House was not getting bad reports and bad intelligence from the State Department or the intelligence community, and simply relaying mis-information that a video had sparked the attack.
They knew. They knew, and they lied.
Which is precisely why GOP lawmakers have a hard time considering Susan Rice competent when she subsequently went on a whirlwind media tour five days later claiming that the attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Mohammad video.
Petraeus, in addition to his ‘amended’ testimony, also informed CNN’s source that “he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.”
Politico is also reporting on these statements from Sen. Saxby Chambliss:
Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Friday stopped short of charging that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was a lie but said it was crafted to provide White House political talking points.
“Susan Rice was sent to give a White House message,” said Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It was not an intelligence community message, and there’s a very clear distinction in that.”
“I do think that there were some politics involved in the message that the White House wanted to send,” he added.
Upon hearing President Obama’s touchy defense of Rice a couple of days ago, Charles Karuthammer had this to say:
You called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know?
The question is rhetorical. We know that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA Director were informed that this was a terror attack almost immediately. The White House then gave Rice her talking points for the American public five days later which denied terrorism was a factor by shifting blame to a video.
Rice had one job and one job only – to lie to you, to lie to me, and to lie to the families of those that were killed that night. All because an election was right around the corner.
This is disgraceful.
Apparently, the ABC affiliate in Denver experienced some confusion over the title of the General David Petraeus biography, All In.
On a graphic used during discussion about CIA director David Petraeus and his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, the news station mistakenly used an image with the title All Up In My Snatch – The Education or General David Petraeus.
Via America Blog:
A reader just sent me something that I didn’t believe. Then he sent me a photo. Then he sent me a video. Then I found a comment on ABC Denver’s Web site from another viewer who saw the same thing. So now I’m printing it.
In a piece on the 5pm news about now-resigned CIA director David Petraeus and his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, ABC News’ Denver affiliate put a photo of the biography on the screen, but the book had an awfully odd name.
The Denver station has since confirmed the image did indeed appear in their broadcast, but says a reporter mistakenly grabbed a photoshopped image from the internet.
… when the 7NEWS reporter went on the Internet to get an image of the book cover, the reporter mistakenly grabbed a Photoshopped image that said, “All Up In My Snatch.”
As such a photo is difficult to locate in a search, it would appear that somebody at the ABC affiliate was caught making an obscene joke about the affair, and it somehow made its way to broadcast.
The image can be seen below…
The Obama administration’s story on the attacks that killed four Americans unravels even further.
Watch the report:
“Details that we have never heard before about what went down. And this is significantly different than what we were told at the time.”
“At the time as you recall we were told it was a protest that went bad and became an attack. Now we are told there was no protest going on outside that embassy.”
“A very complex attack. Without precedent in U.S. diplomatic history.”
Refresher from ABC News, three days after the attack:
The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”
“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”
Obama, September 20th:
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
What, you mean this guy is “totally unprepared”?
Via the Washington Post:
Before his death, Osama bin Laden boldly commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Barack Obama and Gen. David Petraeus.
“The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make (Vice President Joe) Biden take over the presidency. … Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour … and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan.
The scheme is described in one of the documents taken from bin Laden’s compound by U.S. forces on May 2, the night he was killed. I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official. They have been declassified and will be available soon to the public in their original Arabic texts and translations.
The man bin Laden hoped would carry out the attacks on Obama and Petraeus was the Pakistani terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri. “Please ask brother Ilyas to send me the steps he has taken into that work,” bin Laden wrote to his top lieutenant, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. A month after bin Laden’s death, Kashmiri was killed in a U.S. drone attack.
Osama. Stand up, Osama. Let ’em see ya. Oh, god love you, what am I talking about?