• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,416
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says | Fox News

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.

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."
Click to expand...
Looks like the Administration has a problem.
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
No, it looks like the CIA has a problem. According to Petraeus, the final version was changed prior to circulation to Administration Officials. Read the last line of your cite.
Click to expand...

Where is there any certainty that the CIA took the line out? I don't see anything that says who exactly took that out. That's one of the big questions now.....who removed the stuff about terrorists?

And don't forget there were people watching this live.
 
American said:
Where is there any certainty that the CIA took the line out? I don't see anything that says who exactly took that out. That's one of the big questions now.....who removed the stuff about terrorists?

And don't forget there were people watching this live.
Click to expand...

So now you're attacking the credibility of the article that YOU posted?
 
So we either have a gov't that is out of control, or under that control of those that are now free to remain anonymous. Either situation is dangerous and unacceptable. If the head of the CIA has "no idea" what (or who) makes changes to its "official" findings, then why have that position at all? It appears that whatever Obama wants, Obama gets. If this is true of the CIA, then it is likely true of the labor dept. too. We already know that the energy dept. can pick and choose what "investments" it would like to make; no more "earmarks" (specific spending instructions) just let Obama (and his cronies) decide what the people's money gets spent on. Obama is free to enforce the laws that he likes, ignore those "laws" that he does not like and to order the gov't to do/say exactly what he wants them to do/say. The congress has determined that they are totally out of control and must now beg the executive branch to follow the law, rather than to demand it.
 
Wiggen said:
No, it looks like the CIA has a problem. According to Petraeus, the final version was changed prior to circulation to Administration Officials. Read the last line of your cite.
Click to expand...

The idea that the head of the CIA wasn't the last to lay eyes on the briefing to the Administration is disconcerting.
 
American said:
Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says | Fox News


Looks like the Administration has a problem.
Click to expand...

I doubt this will ever see the light of day because of the National Security implications. They'll hide all these interagency briefs and talking points as part of the War on Terror, unless the Senate can get the papers declassified for the purpose of further hearings into wrong doing. It should be interesting to see how this power struggle plays out.
 
Seems like Petraeus has a problem. Seems like even he alluded to the protest in his own briefing.

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.
Click to expand...

American said:
Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says | Fox News


Looks like the Administration has a problem.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
The idea that the head of the CIA wasn't the last to lay eyes on the briefing to the Administration is disconcerting.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The last word presented to the Administration should have been signed off on by Petraeus.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Seems like Petraeus has a problem. Seems like even he alluded to the protest in his own briefing.
Click to expand...

Was Patraeus simply reading the "Obama approved" official CIA talking points of that day? Perhaps, with the hope that would keep his "affair" from removing him from his latest job, he decided to play along. The most disturbing part is that nobody is named as the author of those talking points. You can not convict "anonymous" of lying or cooking the books. Each puppet, and the puppet master, is innocent as long as they never have to disclose who pulls their strings.
 
Man, that is quite a lot of conspiracy there over what I deem a minor issue. There are a plethora of reasons for any one of them to lie about the cause of the attack. It doesn't always have to be nefarious, perhaps it was part of a ruse to get the attackers to lower their guard.

Benghazi attack suspect arrested in Tunisia; AP reports 2nd suspect killed in Egypt - CBS News

Not saying that is the reason, but it could be.

ttwtt78640 said:
Was Patraeus simply reading the "Obama approved" official CIA talking points of that day? Perhaps, with the hope that would keep his "affair" from removing him from his latest job, he decided to play along. The most disturbing part is that nobody is named as the author of those talking points. You can not convict "anonymous" of lying or cooking the books. Each puppet, and the puppet master, is innocent as long as they never have to disclose who pulls their strings.
Click to expand...
 
A couple of things...

First, I believe messages regarding intel...such as from the CIA...are vetted through the Director National Intelligence first before going to the President.

Second, the article is somewhat ambiguous in reality by this statement:

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.
Click to expand...

In reality, in terms of government speak and the general flow of the bureaucracy, there's legitimately two ways to read that and think of the situation.

A) The CIA drafts Administration "talking points" and distributes them Itself

or

B) The CIA drafts it's talking points which is submitted to the POTUS, whose staff disseminates it out to the officials of the administration

Either could be possible, and the line in the story in no way is a definitive claim that it was the CIA that took out the information between their original penning of the intel and the point in which it was circulated.
 
MaggieD said:
The idea that the head of the CIA wasn't the last to lay eyes on the briefing to the Administration is disconcerting.
Click to expand...

And probably horse****. really stop and think about it for a moment. What wouldn't this guy see. and he missed one report like that?

Really. Hey listen I got some nice lake front property in New York State I would like to talk to you about.
 
Zyphlin said:
A couple of things...

First, I believe messages regarding intel...such as from the CIA...are vetted through the Director National Intelligence first before going to the President.

Second, the article is somewhat ambiguous in reality by this statement:



In reality, in terms of government speak and the general flow of the bureaucracy, there's legitimately two ways to read that and think of the situation.

A) The CIA drafts Administration "talking points" and distributes them Itself

or

B) The CIA drafts it's talking points which is submitted to the POTUS, whose staff disseminates it out to the officials of the administration

Either could be possible, and the line in the story in no way is a definitive claim that it was the CIA that took out the information between their original penning of the intel and the point in which it was circulated.
Click to expand...

I like this one better. Makes moree sense.
 
Well, we know which version the Right Wing Conspiracy theorists believe, don't we?
 
wolfman24 said:
And probably horse****. really stop and think about it for a moment. What wouldn't this guy see. and he missed one report like that?

Really. Hey listen I got some nice lake front property in New York State I would like to talk to you about.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that Petraeus' version certainly paints him in the best possible light.
 
Wait you mean it wasn't an "insensitive video" that hurt Al Qaeda's feelings?
 
Zyphlin said:
A couple of things...

First, I believe messages regarding intel...such as from the CIA...are vetted through the Director National Intelligence first before going to the President.

Second, the article is somewhat ambiguous in reality by this statement:



In reality, in terms of government speak and the general flow of the bureaucracy, there's legitimately two ways to read that and think of the situation.

A) The CIA drafts Administration "talking points" and distributes them Itself

or

B) The CIA drafts it's talking points which is submitted to the POTUS, whose staff disseminates it out to the officials of the administration

Either could be possible, and the line in the story in no way is a definitive claim that it was the CIA that took out the information between their original penning of the intel and the point in which it was circulated.
Click to expand...

So what does the DNI/DDNI say about the "official" CIA report? It seems that everyone has no idea just who gets to make the "official" call (about anything). The public (and congress) gets so many "official" versions that we need months of hearings and investigations into everything simply to confirm that chaos exists (just like with fast & fuzzy, Solyndra and ...). This all, of course, makes little difference since "getting it right next time" is impossible if we allow the current "anonymous" and "blameless" system to remain in place. In Benghazi the security was lax, more security was requested, an attack happened, nobody responded to Obama order to "do all that we can", 4 people died and nobody was "wrong". USA, USA, USA...
 
Zyphlin said:
A couple of things...

First, I believe messages regarding intel...such as from the CIA...are vetted through the Director National Intelligence first before going to the President.

Second, the article is somewhat ambiguous in reality by this statement:



In reality, in terms of government speak and the general flow of the bureaucracy, there's legitimately two ways to read that and think of the situation.

A) The CIA drafts Administration "talking points" and distributes them Itself

or

B) The CIA drafts it's talking points which is submitted to the POTUS, whose staff disseminates it out to the officials of the administration

Either could be possible, and the line in the story in no way is a definitive claim that it was the CIA that took out the information between their original penning of the intel and the point in which it was circulated.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There's only one logical way to read the statement and that is that the line about AQ was taken out before the final version was circulated to the administration. You can speculate that the statement could be wrong, or inartfully worded, but you can't read it to say that the administration removed the language.
 
AdamT said:
I disagree. There's only one logical way to read the statement and that is that the line about AQ was taken out before the final version was circulated to the administration. You can speculate that the statement could be wrong, or inartfully worded, but you can't read it to say that the administration removed the language.
Click to expand...

So the CIA tricked Obama into telling Rice to go on all those morning shows and blame it on a video?
 
AdamT said:
I disagree. There's only one logical way to read the statement and that is that the line about AQ was taken out before the final version was circulated to the administration. You can speculate that the statement could be wrong, or inartfully worded, but you can't read it to say that the administration removed the language.
Click to expand...

To "administration personnel" not to "The Administratoin". While you may not like it Adam, that is a legitimate difference. "Administration personnel" at times refers not specifically to the POTUS himself but the staff underneath him. I'ts not about being "wrong" or "inartfully word", it's about having a generalized understanding of how things are referenced within the government beuracracy.

It absolutely could be that Patreaus was suggesting that in the morning the CIA had it as part of their report but it was taken out prior to their submission of it to the administratoin.

It also could absolutely be that Patreaus was suggesting that the CIA had it in their report they submitted, but at the point when the official report went out to the administrations officials it was no longer there.

Simply because you dislike that option doesn't make it not plausible nor legitimate. Just because you wish to reword it yourself into "The Administration" rather than "Administration Officials" doesn't make it the truth. And the reality is, it's a one line summary of a testimony that is stated in a way that leaves WHO made the change 100% unanswered and ambiguous. There is not only "one way" one can "logically" read the line about info being taken out because it does not in any way clearly indicate who took that information out. You are GUESSING based on the information present, same as everyone else...unlike some of us though, you're foolishly suggesting that the interpritation favorable to your desires is the only "real" way it could possibly mean.
 
Wiggen said:
Agreed. The last word presented to the Administration should have been signed off on by Petraeus.
Click to expand...

It is not that unusual based on my understanding that lots of eyes see these sorts of things before they ever hit the Oval Office with people having the privilege to nuance them, but I don't feel like going ten rounds again with those folks who think the National Security Adviser personally sits down and goes through every agency's entire intelligence information every day at 3:00a.m. and personally writes the 6:00a.m. PDB 365 days a year. Crap gets staffed out. It is how the real world works.
 
There is one simple conclusion to all of this. No one really cares. Fact is obama himself could have issued a " stand down " order and covered it up after SHTF. People will. Be mad, but nothing can be done. Ultimately " mission accomplished " delay the facts past the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom