A source who spoke to Gen. Petraeus told CNN’s Barbara Starr the former CIA Director wants to clear up some misconceptions. He wants to tell Congress that he knew almost immediately that Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group was responsible for the preplanned attack on the Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The question of their motivation is where the confusion lies according to the this report. Initially, there were up to 20 intelligence reports that blamed the YouTube video as the motivation. Those reports were disproven in time, but supposedly not before Petraeus had testified before Congress on the 14th, three days after the attack.
He also reportedly had his own talking points separate from Susan Rice’s talking points which came from someone else in the administration, an account that seems to be at odds with a CBS report, Thursday that revealed “CIA talking points” for Susan Rice that characterized the Benghazi attack as “spontaneously inspired” by protests. (Uh huh.)
John Nolte, at Breitbart:
There’s no question that at first a “fog of war” excuse made perfect sense. But what’s also not in question is that as the days and weeks passed, the White House moved further and further away from what the President said on “60 Minutes” — which means that as those 20 or so reports were being “disproved,” the Administration was moving further and further away from the truth.
How did that happen?
The other issue, and this is something I’ve been pushing for weeks now, is that both White House spokesman Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the media repeatedly that there was absolutely no evidence that Libya was premeditated.
Now we know there was.
It’s one thing to say you believe the attack was over a video, it’s an entirely different tightrope to walk when you’re saying in no uncertain terms that there’s “no evidence” of a terror attack.
Rice repeatedly claimed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous YouTube protest that had gotten out of hand – not a real terrorist attack, which Petraeus understood “almost immediately.”
Here it is once again, the Heritage Foundation’s recap of the Regime’s disinformation campaign:
Republicans are not backing down. In fact, Sen. John McCain launched a fierce counterattack on Obama after he called McCain’s criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice “outrageous” and said critics of Rice should “go after me.”
McCain then reminded Obama that although he is the president, he is not the king:
He really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. I’m a United States Senator. We have our responsibilities, we have our duties, and we are not picking on anyone here.
And McCain connected the dots by noting that whatever Rice said, her marching orders came from upstairs:
Those talking points did not come from the CIA, they came from the White House. Who at the White House gave her those talking points?
Obama might do well not to cross a man who’s survived more serious issues than a verbal attack.
Folks, has Obama finally gone too far?
And this is ominous:
Should there be an investigation as to how Broadwell got access to classified material? Absolutely, although the FBI and DoJ seemed oddly reluctant to make that an issue until the story leaked. This leak looks more like a message rather than due diligence, though.
Via Hot Air:
Petraeus testified for 90 minutesto the House committee first (not the Senate as I wrote above), of which the panel spent “ten seconds” on his affair with Paula Broadwell, according to Rep. Peter King. However, King and Petraeus had a dispute about his initial briefing to Congress, which turned at least contentious:
King said that Petraeus maintained that he said early on that the ambush was a result of terrorism, but King added that he remembered Petraeus and the Obama administration downplaying the role of an al Qaeda affiliate in the attack in the days after Stevens was killed. The administration initially said the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against a video that lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.
“That is not my recollection” of what Petraeus initially said, King said today.
The congressman suggested that pressing Petraeus was awkward at times.
“It’s a lot easier when you dislike the guy,” King said.
Petraeus moved from that hearing to the Senate Intelligence Committee for more testimony.
Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!