The Petraeus affair

Petraeus Says Terror Link Dropped From Libya Attack Memo

Former CIA director David H. Petraeus said a reference to possible al-Qaeda connections was dropped from “talking points” used by the Obama administration in its initial account of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to lawmakers.

Bloomberg,

17 November, 2012

The testimony by Petraeus today before closed sessions of the Senate and House intelligence committee set off a new round in the political dispute over the Obama administration’s early description of the deadly attack as developing from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video.

Democrats said the memo was amended to eliminate sensitive material, drawn from classified sources, in preparing an account for public consumption of the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. A version of the Sept. 15 memo released today by Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, refers to “extremists” rather than naming al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama’s administration for its early description of the attack, saying it may have been an attempt to play down the role of al-Qaeda during the president’s re-election campaign. Today, Republicans said the testimony by Petraeus demands explanations.

“It’s still not clear how the talking points emerged,” Republican Representative Peter King of New York, a member of the House intelligence committee, said today after the briefing by Petraeus. “No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points.”

‘Long Process’

While Petraeus told the House panel today that he didn’t know how the reference to al-Qaeda connections was dropped from the memo, the former CIA chief said it went “through a long process” with other federal agencies involved, according to King.

Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said “the intelligence community had all signed off on” the talking points. He said the version used in public may have been “at variance” with one that contained classified information.

Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat, said, “They went from a classified version to an unclassified version, and that’s why it was changed.”

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice depended on the intelligence community’s talking points when she said on Sunday talk shows Sept. 16 that the assault developed from a spontaneous demonstration that was “hijacked” by militants, according to the administration.

Memo Matches

The memo released by Nelson matches that description.

“Demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex,” according to the memo, which also said, “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Nelson, a member of the Senate intelligence panel, said in a statement that “the talking points were necessarily vague in places because they were written at an unclassified level.”

Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, said Sept. 28 that the intelligence community had revised its initial assessment to say that the assault was “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack.”

A U.S. intelligence official who was involved in preparing the memo said today he didn’t know whether the word “extremists” was chosen over “terrorists” in the final version given to Rice in order to protect intelligence sources and methods or because it would be less volatile politically in the U.S. election campaign as well as in the Islamic world. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Hastily Organized

The evidence of what happened in Benghazi matches neither the Obama administration’s initial accounts nor Republican portrayals of the incident, Bloomberg News reported last month. There wasn’t a peaceful demonstration against the video that grew violent, nor an al-Qaeda-planned attack.

Instead, the assault on the Benghazi compound was a hastily organized act by local men using weapons widely available in Libya, according to evidence at the scene and U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity about the intelligence they saw.

Muhammed Jamal abu Ahmad, a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, the militia believed to have mounted the attack, has ties to al- Qaeda in Pakistan and its affiliates in Yemen and North Africa. Still, the al-Qaeda groups learned of the assault only after one of the attackers called to boast of it, information gained by U.S. intelligence agencies through phone calls and other communications, according to the officials.

A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia has denied the group’s involvement.

‘Some Confusion’

“I still think there’s some confusion within the administration,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, a California Republican, said today. “I would encourage them to get the information out because there’s still a lot of unrest in the country.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the intelligence committee, said after a closed session yesterday that the panel saw a “composite” film that showed the Libya attack taking place “in real time.” McKeon said today that Clapper was working to declassify the film, which McKeon called a “45-minute recap” of the attack, to make it public.

Petraeus Resignation

Petraeus resigned as CIA director Nov. 9 after an inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned up evidence he had an extramarital affair. Petraeus told the House committee today that his resignation was an honorable response after his “dishonorable” behavior, according to Representative Bill Young, a Florida Republican.

Feinstein said the Senate panel didn’t press Petraeus to discuss his affair because “we wanted to spare him that.”

Dozens of reporters and photographers who gathered for the Petraeus briefings never saw him. They were kept at a distance from the House and Senate meeting rooms by Capitol Police officers, and the retired general came and went through back entrances.

Debate over Rice’s account of the Benghazi attack has stirred a political storm that is intensifying with the prospect that Obama may nominate her to replace the departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he is “adamantly opposed and will do everything I can to keep her from getting confirmed.” Republican colleague Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made the same vow.

Obama rebuked McCain and Graham during a press conference on Nov. 14, saying Rice has done “exemplary work” and that “to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

Feinstein said today that Rice’s Republican critics are trying to “assassinate” a possible nominee. “We take issue at that,” she said.

Petraeus lied to Congress: Lawmakers say general’s remarks contradict earlier testimony

Retired US Army General David Petraeus testified before Congress this week about the storming of a US consulate building in Benghazi, contradicting previous statements made by the since-resigned CIA chief.

RT,

16 November, 2012

Friday morning’s closed-door session was void of the normal media presence as lawmakers on Capitol Hill grilled Gen. Petraeus for further information about the assault in Libya two months ago that left four Americans dead, including the country’s ambassador.

Since the attack on Sept. 12, little has been explained to either the public or politicians in Washington about what really happened before, during and after the consulate was raided in Benghazi. In the immediate aftermath, the White House, State Department and reportedly even Petraeus himself suggested that the assault was likely a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic film produced in America that had been circulating on the Web. Hours earlier a similar demonstration erupted outside a US embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and the events shortly after in Benghazi were considered to be a copycat protest. In the weeks and months since the attack, however, government agencies have slowly but surely retired that explanation to instead blame the assault on anti-American insurgents, perhaps with al-Qaeda affiliation, waging what is now considered a terrorist attack.

Gen. Petraeus testified to that claim on Friday, sources in attendance say, despite previously suggesting the Benghazi incident was spurred by the “Innocence of Muslims” movie.

US Rep. Peter King (R-New York) told reporters on the Hill Friday morning that Gen. Petraeus’ latest remarks do not mirror the explanation he offered in the days after Sept. 11.

"He had told us that this was a terrorist attack and there were terrorists involved from the start," King said to CNN. "I told him, my questions, I had a very different recollection of that (earlier account)," he said. "The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack."

According to the Associated Press, the current claim that the event was an act of terrorism may have been the CIA’s initial story but was snuffed from the scoop delivered to the public in the days after the attack. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-Rhode Island) says that could have been the result of several agencies switching between classified and unclassified reports in the hours and days after Sept. 11.

"There may have been confusion with the unclassified talking points. … Perhaps there's greater clarity in the classified talking points," Langevin told reporters on the Hill early Friday. "There were perhaps some subtleties that were used that may have been understood by some to mean one thing, where others may have had a different understanding of words – for example, 'extremist' versus 'terrorist.'"

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota.) told the press he thought Sen. Langevin’s take could easily explain why Susan Rice, the US representative to the United Nations, painted the tragedy as a protest and not a terrorist attack at first.

"The confusion arises between the difference between what is classified and unclassified… What is classified cannot be discussed publicly because it would reveal, potentially, the sources and methods used to gather intelligence," he said. 

"The notes that Ambassador Rice were speaking from were in an unclassified setting… She did entirely the responsible thing by answering questions based on what was unclassified and agreed to by the entire the entire intelligence committee as reflecting their unclassified views at the moment she used those talking points.”

Rep. King seemed unhappy with the issue being described as just a mix-up, though, addressing the press with allegations that made Gen. Petraeus seem uncertain of his own statements.

"He thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement," King said. "That was not my recollection."

"The fact is, the reference to al-Qaida was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community," King said. "We need to find out who did it and why."

Gen. Petraeus’ comments to Congress this week came just a week after he resigned from head of the Central Intelligence Agency since going public with an extramarital affair he conducted with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Sources on the Hill this week say the general made it clear during his answers that the Benghazi snafu played no role in his resignation.