Congress to investigate Benghazi 'talking points'

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers said Sunday they want to know who had a hand in creating the Obama administration's now-discredited "talking points" about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and why a final draft omitted the CIA's early conclusion that terrorists were involved.

The answers could explain why President Barack Obama and top aides, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the attack for days afterward as a protest against an anti-Islam video that spontaneously turned violent and why they played down any potential link to al-Qaida, despite evidence to the contrary.

Administration officials have defended the portrayal of the attack as relying on the best information available at the time that didn't compromise classified intelligence. Democrats say CIA and other intelligence officials signed off on the final talking points.

Republicans have alleged a Watergate-like cover up, accusing White House aides of hiding the terrorism link in the run-up to the Nov. 6 presidential election so voters wouldn't question Obama's claim that al-Qaida's power had diminished.

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20121118/DA2KK4T00.html

---

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., left, with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., right, speaks during a media availability after a closed-door oversight hearing of the committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012, looking into the circumstances surrounding the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

[loyalkydem]

1. did I miss something

Didn't Peter King say that Ambassador Rice was telling the truth?

Really lost here...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. "It's about fucking time!"

[Skittles]

3. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Dubster]

4. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

[Mr. Sparkle]

5. and the stupid investigations, waste everyones time, ensures nothing happens in congress ...

begins.

The democratic controlled Senate need to have an investigation into the politicly motivated, waste of money house investigation.

[kardonb]

15. benghazi

So , lets have some fun and start investigating something , that way we don't have to do any really important work , and we still egt paid and in the news ( lesson from old McGrumpus ).

[former9thward]

36. Its a Senate hearing.

[DallasNE]

6. But Al Qa eda's Power Had Diminished

And substantially, This was, after all, a small scale attack that ended up killing only 4 people. One roadside bomb sometimes does this much or more damage. It is unfortunate but still small potatoes. Review it for mistakes and then move on. End of story.

[former9thward]

37. "ended up killing only 4 people".

"move on" "End of story".

I'll try and drag you into the real world for a few seconds. This was an attack on American soil which resulted in the death of an Ambassador and 3 others. Most people do not want to move on. They want to know the truth no matter where it leads.

[DallasNE]

39. Speaking Of The Real World

What evidence do you have that the truth has not been told start to finish. Or do you think Petraeus lied to Congress last week? In a dangerous world this was a minor event. For instance, how many have been killed in Syria and Gaza in the last couple of weeks. I've lost track, what was your point again -- if you even had one. Indeed, it is time for the appropriate Committee's to conduct quiet investigations while the rest of the country moves on. End of story.

[former9thward]

40. What evidence?

Petraeus has testified his reference to terrorism was edited out of the talking points. Who did that and why? You would have been a good adviser for Nixon after Watergate. You move on. The rest of us will wait for the truth.

[DallasNE]

42. Yes, You Move On

That answer has already been given. The specifics are classified. While revealing classified data didn't stop Dick Cheney it should have. But then you don't want the truth, you just want the talking point -- just like McCain and Graham. That's fine company you are keeping here. Fine company.

[former9thward]

43. Feinstein is the lead Senate investigator.

Is she part of your conspiracy too?

[hrmjustin]

7. I think they should move on.

[eyewall]

8. Who needs terrorists when you have republicans ?

[JDPriestly]

10. It was so obvious from the beginning that the confused reports

were done for security reasons.

The Republicans are looking for an excuse for why they lost the election. They just can't face the fact that this is a liberal country and that, in particular, workers who have lost their jobs since 2008 or been forced to accept less pay and young people no longer buy their conservative lies.

Get over it guys. It does not make any difference whether someone "hid the truth" in the days following the Benghazi matter. Something was going on in that consulate that our government did not want you or anyone else to know. You probably know it now. Leave it be. You are wading into a classified cesspool and about to compromise America's security. Just leave it be.

[eyewall]

12. republicans need to get on America's side

and stop their impeachment strategy. They are enemies of the state.

[pangaia]

18. Enemies of the State is exactly right.

This is a witch hunt and Graham, Saxby, et al know exactly what they are doing. Who will shut them up??

[FiveGoodMen]

35. The GOP will never be on America's side

(or any side but its own)

Americans need to get on America's side by rejecting the GOP.

[former9thward]

38. Since when has Feinstein become a Republican?

She has taken a lead on this investigation.

[Iliyah]

9. All this bullshit probing. What they need to

do is probe 2001 - 9/11 and the Iraqi war.

[SoapBox]

14. Yes...but...

the SPINELESS jelly fish DEMS, won't do it.

Can you say...chickens!

[Skip Intro]

11. This all seems so familiar... nt

[LoisB]

13. Call me stupid, but I guess I don't understand the "problem". Is it that Susan Rice said the best

information they had at the time was that it started as a protest stemming from the video? Is it that the President didn't say "terrorist" often enough or loudly enough or quickly enough? Who had any "facts" about it other than that there was an attack and four Americans were killed?

How these Republicans sleep at night is beyond me. There is no "there", there except in their pea brains. Besides, what difference does it make if it was a spontaneous demonstration gone amok or a planned terrorist attack? Four people are dead and I'm sure it makes no difference to their families how it started.

[John2]

16. Read the

article carefully. The whitehouse only edited one word. They are either using Fienstein as a cover or she diesn't understand what the Republicans are doing. Or she doesn't want to be blunt with them. I watched her facial expressions today and she seemed taken aback at some of the outrageous allegations Rogers was making. He also claimed Eric Holder might had told the President about Petraeus.

To be frank, it appears Petraeus's own CIA did the change because they cleared it. They were the ones that had to edit out what they believed to be sensitive information. The reason I know this, is because I'm taking some Forensic Science classes. This is nothing but bull. Even if the information was wrong at the beginning it is Bull. I can see right through this Dog and Pony show. Why don't the CIA just admit they messed up? Stephens had to have known that area was dangerous. I don't even believe the reason the CIA claims Stephens went in that area. It is well known Stephens took risks on his own. He was one of the people meeting secretly with the militias to overthrow Ghaddaffi. Now I'm not stupid.

The only reason the CIA could have had an annex there, is probably they were secretly doing a mission in that area of Libya. And the polticization of it probably blew the cover. I'm just putting two and two together here. And despite the claims, there is some evidence the CIA had a fire fight with the assailants. Probably Stephens just got caught up in it. So they have to explain the death of the Top Ambassador in libya. Now all this is just an educated guess. I still want to know how a CNN correspondant gained access to the consulate and took evidence from the site. The only way that could have happened is through the CIA. She should have never had access to a crime scene where there is an ongoing investigation much less retrieve that diary. Why isn't that tampering?

[madrchsod]

17. issa outs the whole god dam thing as a cia operation .

since the republicans and their stooges in the media hate the black muslim in the white house issa gets a pass on possible treason. if it was`t so serious one could laugh at the bus full of republican clowns that make up the house but it`s serous and not one bit funny.
let`s not forget the exalted senators who are conducting their own investigation on the most important issue of the week...who`s side of the aisle is going to take the fall.

[John2]

21. Who will

get the knife. I predict the CIA and the Republicans. I think a key to blowing this up in their faces is the CNN correspondent, that got near the scene and took evidence from the site. The only way that could have happened is if someone authorized it. It all points to the CIA. Remenber, the FBI was held up from entering the site. The FBI comes under Eric Holder and not David Petraeus. It is very evident to me the Republicans have contacts in the CIA. It was the FBI ended up investigating Petreus. It was his mistress given out information that might have been classified. It was his mistress, that had classified information on her computer. Not only that, it was the highest Government official in the Libyan government who mentioned a crowd in his first report to the media sources. He not only did that, put he placed blame on Ghadaffi loyalists and not on Al Qaieda. Read the account he gave to news sources. There is also mention of a witness, that gave an account to the first media sources. That account conflicts with what Petraeus claims. His account was young boys on the scene protesting the video. he also claimed he saw armed men get off a gun truck with a logo for the Libyan Government on it. The CNN correspondent, didn't give the diary to law enforcement. She gave it to CNN.

[SaveAmerica]

26. You just wrote an episode of Murder She Wrote, Libya style

This is my take on it, too.

[liberal N proud]

19. I hope this backfires on the republican witch hunters.

[denvine]

20. Who f__king cares!

OMG, why is congress acting like reporters for the National Enquirer. They need to get to work for us. Isn't that the reason they were elected. There's a lot to do assholes, stop procrastinating on something that doesn't matter.

[AntiFascist]

22. "Watergate-like" implies...

any neocon involvement will be covered up. Look into the background of Bob Wooward.

Early intelligence leaks implied that Stevens was involved in illegal arms flow to Al Qaeda, in order to bolster the anti-Assad movement. When this flow was stopped (possibly because some of the arms were redirected to Hamas?) Al Qaeda may have become angry. People can't handle the truth, so they have to invent a story that will bring down the CIC.

[SaveAmerica]

23. I say Patraeus was knee deep in it and he's out now

to make room for a CIA director that's not a Bush ally.

(Cause you know if you're in Government and you've done anything that can be used against you, someone already knows about it and, if needed, will use it against you. That's why I'm surprised he was so stupid to have an affair in his position).

[ciking724]

24. I thought Petraeus said Friday that he approved the "unclassified" version of the talking points

that Susan Rice presented. Who is having a problem understanding that? Ridiculous. Someone should keep a record of the people pursuing this and next election, just vote them out of office. What a waste!

[1springhill]

25. Will any reporter ever tell the truth about what was really said by Susan Rice?

She did not say that.

RICE (9/16/12): Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present.

First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo—almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.

Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear—we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2012/11/rice-watch-where-does-standard-group.html

[ProfessionalLeftist]

27. This was all covered in Petraeus's testimony. This is a waste of time

and a partisan witchhunt. Problem is, there's no witch. Morons.

[dennis4868]

30. But

Why is Feinstein going along with the GOP witch hunt?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

33. No idea. No telling. n/t

[librarylu]

28. Gawd!

Can't they just play Clue or something?

[dennis4868]

29. Can someone explain to me

what Feinstein's problem is? Now she wants answers from the WH? WTF? It's clear that the intelligence community didn't want the al-Qaeda group named in the talking points and the intelligence community signed off on the final version of the public talking points. SO WHO GIVES A SHIT WHO EDITED OUT THE AL-QUEDA GROUP FROM THE TALKING POINTS?

I'm not seeing any issues here? Why is Feinstein going along with the GOP's BULLSHIT. Please, someone clear this up for me.

[AntiFascist]

31. One prevailing right-wing conspiracy theory...

is that the "Obama regime" was arranging for the kidnap of Stevens as an October surprise to make the release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman more palatable, but then something went wrong. This is based on someone's leak. Just do a Google search on "Benghazi Stevens kidnap".

A more believable leak states that Stevens was monitoring the flow of arms from Libya to Al Qaeda linked parties in Syria. The right-wing is inventing a story to make Obama out as the bad guy, when it is really the neocons who are deep into the nefarious dealings. Feinstein obviously wants to get to the bottom of it, but I'll be surprised if the truth is ever made public. People are more interested in sexual misconduct anyway.

[Beartracks]

32. You know how police can't say everything they know to avoid revealing stuff to bad guys?

Yeah, it's like that.

Get a clue, Republicans. There's REAL work to be done around here.

==================================

[bemildred]

34. Whence comes this desire to beshit themselves in public like this?

I don't get it.

[meow2u3]

41. Repukes refuse to let facts get in the way of a partisan witch hunt

They're so desperate to bring down the President that if they can't find a scandal to pin on President Obama, they might as well make something up.