Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500

    Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack

    WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

    Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

    In his first public appearance since he resigned last week, Mr. Petraeus testified before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in back-to-back closed-door hearings as lawmakers from both parties continued to wrestle with questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and why its public portrayal conflicted with the intelligence agencies’ classified assessments.

    “They knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation,” said Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

    During his testimony, Mr. Petraeus expressed regret for his affair. Lawmakers did not ask him about it. In addition to what the administration knew about assailants, they focused their questions on possible security lapses at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, particularly given a spate of attacks this year in Benghazi against the American Mission, the British ambassador’s convoy and the Red Cross.

    State Department officials have said five diplomatic security officers were at the mission on Sept. 11, including two traveling with Mr. Stevens. They were initially up against more than 50 fighters, armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, who easily breached the compound and set fire to it.

    Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said Mr. Petraeus’s testimony showed that “clearly the security measures were inadequate despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of Sept. 11.”

    But many of the questions from lawmakers dealt with how the intelligence services and the administration over all responded to a request from the House committee for unclassified talking points about what happened, in advance of a closed briefing by Mr. Petraeus on Sept. 14, three days after the attack.

    The issue took on added resonance after Republicans criticized the ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, for suggesting on Sunday talk shows five days after the assault that the siege in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest rather than an opportunistic terrorist attack.

    Democrats leapt to Ms. Rice’s defense on Friday, saying she was simply following the unclassified talking points provided to her. “I really think Ambassador Rice is being treated unfairly,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee.

    The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

    Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

    At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

    “The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”

    After the hearings on Friday, administration officials disputed the notion that politics or other motives caused the changes.

    “The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

    Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

    Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

    Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that Mr. Petraeus explained to lawmakers that the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Mr. Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.

    Ms. Feinstein, read the final unclassified talking points to reporters:

    “The currently available information suggests that the 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. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

    “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

    “The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/wo...ewanted=2&_r=0

    So the Republicans knew about this and still attacked Obama for it? SMH.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,208
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah...I think that is exactly what i told all the conspiracy theorists in here a month ago.
    Its called opsec/comsec

    you dont share information in an active operation with anyone, period.
    The only reason the Rs were active in the asking for more was in hopes that something might stick to Obama in an election.

    Otherwise they would have wisely kept their big mouths shut until everyonne of the planners was 6 feet under. Nice going Fox news..who knows if well ever get them now....well done!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Yeah...I think that is exactly what i told all the conspiracy theorists in here a month ago.
    Its called opsec/comsec

    you dont share information in an active operation with anyone, period.
    The only reason the Rs were active in the asking for more was in hopes that something might stick to Obama in an election.

    Otherwise they would have wisely kept their big mouths shut until everyonne of the planners was 6 feet under. Nice going Fox news..who knows if well ever get them now....well done!
    I found this comment on Reddit to be pretty much on point:
    GOP congress votes to cut funds for embassy security, embassy gets attacked, ambassador killed, Obama's fault.

    Obama responds with carefully worded diplomacy, nuanced policy, subsequently condemned by Romney and a republican congress for not immediately declaring war on someone.

    Revealed in testimony that the President's statement was designed to protect American lives and security, and congress knew it.

    Tomorrow on Fox, "FBI investigation reveals Obama in conspiracy with CIA and disgraced Petraeus".

    Does the truth even matter anymore?
    As well as

    Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?
    Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
    Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
    How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
    There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
    Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
    In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
    In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Silverdale, Wa
    Posts
    8,422
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Yeah...I think that is exactly what i told all the conspiracy theorists in here a month ago.
    Its called opsec/comsec

    you dont share information in an active operation with anyone, period.
    The only reason the Rs were active in the asking for more was in hopes that something might stick to Obama in an election.

    Otherwise they would have wisely kept their big mouths shut until everyonne of the planners was 6 feet under. Nice going Fox news..who knows if well ever get them now....well done!
    Exactly, it's just common sense. The Rs were pretty pathetic in this situation and I'm a conservative myself.
    Quote Originally Posted by nessythegreat View Post
    This is getting old. Enough is enough. Redskin Is not offensive and it will never change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    I want to start a website where people who say this video tape themselves going up to Native Americans and go "hey what's up redskin?" and then upload what happens.

    I'll call it WhatsUpRedskin.com



    You want to go first?
    I fully support this future site.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Clearly they threatened his family or something.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,208
    vCash
    1500
    I personally think that the Obamas are actually "Dire Wraiths" from the 1980s Marvel Comicbook ROM the spaceknight..shape shifting alien invaders that infiltrate positions of power to take over worlds....Oh Rom....where fore art thou Rom?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    I personally think that the Obamas are actually "Dire Wraiths" from the 1980s Marvel Comicbook ROM the spaceknight..shape shifting alien invaders that infiltrate positions of power to take over worlds....Oh Rom....where fore art thou Rom?
    Actually, they're American Heroes that just saved us from that very situation.

    What, you thought it was a coincidence he just beat a guy named Romney?
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,208
    vCash
    1500
    Last edited by stephkyle7; 11-17-2012 at 03:07 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,115
    vCash
    1500
    This is ********. So it all came down to two options, eh? 1. Call it a terrorist attack, naming the groups suspected in being involved, or 2. Make up **** about it being about the video. Can't be anything else. Can't be any variation thereof. It must fit into a box that suits our particular political agenda.

    No. Once again this is ********. And I love being painted in with 9/11 truthers and birhters. This could ahve been easily solved by just saying the truth without giving up too much informaiton.

    "There was an attack against the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and it appears from the tactics and weapons used this was more than a simple spontaneous mob- at this time it appears to have been a planned, well coordinated attack. We are investigating who may have been involved , and how exactly it was able to have been carried out. As the invesitagation into this matter yields informaiton that we can share, we will make that information available. It is important for all of us not to reach to conclusions before we have all the information. We will commit every available resource to fully investigate this attack, and our respnse to it as quickly as possible. This heinous attack against a US consulate will not be forgotten. We are committed to finding those responsible and bringing them to justice."

    There. Was that so hard? Polish that crappy little paragraph up and it would have served the WH better than the "whole load" we got from them. Are you really going to sit there and defend what was so blatantly repeated false statements about this? Even if someone fed him misinformation, its still false. If so, it only proves my point in the other thread. Obama can not, under any circumstance, ever do anything that might ever possibly bear scrutiny or criticism in the eyes of some in this forum. He can literally do no wrong. It is the one thing in this forum I have found really interesting. Every right leaning person in here has criticized W and many other republicans. I don't remember the last time I ever heard one left leaning individual in this forum ever so much as slightly criticize, or even question Obama. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I honestly don't remember seeing it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,441
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    . . . I don't remember the last time I ever heard one left leaning individual in this forum ever so much as slightly criticize, or even question Obama. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I honestly don't remember seeing it.
    pats,

    I think I can give you a couple of examples. During the Obamacare debate, there were lots of 'left leaning individual's' that wanted a single-payer system and were unhappy that the Obama administration settled the way it did. There were people who thought the stimulus was not large enough and didn't target the type of spending the economy needed, that it had too many tax breaks instead of spending. There are lots, most probably, that thought the Iraq withdrawal was too slow, that the Afghanistan withdrawal was both too slow and not a complete withdrawal. That the US drone strikes were not a good thing. That targeted assassination is a bad thing. That the Obama people gave away too much in the negotiations with the GOP over raising the debt limit. That want the defense budget slashed, bases closed and the troops overseas brought home.

    Those are just the ones I can think off off hand. There are probably others. But those criticisms get lost in the mindless drumbeat of the GOP haters. If the GOP was less strident and stupid in the way and tone it uses to attack Obama, you would probably hear more criticism from the Democrats. But the tactic of opposing every Obama position at bull blast only forces the Democrats together to defend their team. Much of what you don't like is created by the guys on your side.

    Hope that answered your question, if not, just ask it again. But type slower next time, sometimes I have trouble keeping up.

    Also, if you would, explain to me why the Obama Administration would lie about the terror attack in Benghazi. In other words, what is the upside for Obama to say it was a demonstration? I've never heard any logical reason that explains why the Obama administration would want to lie, just that they did. The most logical explanation is the CIA messed up. But the GOP doesn't say that happened, they spin some secret plan to hide the truth. and scream Watergate and use the loss of 4 guys as political game fodder. You know more about this area of the world than most of us, what reason could Obama have for not calling this a terror attack at the beginning other than Obama is an secret evil muslim terrorist out to destroy america. which seems to be the current GOP theme.

    thanx

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,115
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    pats,

    I think I can give you a couple of examples. During the Obamacare debate, there were lots of 'left leaning individual's' that wanted a single-payer system and were unhappy that the Obama administration settled the way it did. There were people who thought the stimulus was not large enough and didn't target the type of spending the economy needed, that it had too many tax breaks instead of spending. There are lots, most probably, that thought the Iraq withdrawal was too slow, that the Afghanistan withdrawal was both too slow and not a complete withdrawal. That the US drone strikes were not a good thing. That targeted assassination is a bad thing. That the Obama people gave away too much in the negotiations with the GOP over raising the debt limit. That want the defense budget slashed, bases closed and the troops overseas brought home.

    Those are just the ones I can think off off hand. There are probably others. But those criticisms get lost in the mindless drumbeat of the GOP haters. If the GOP was less strident and stupid in the way and tone it uses to attack Obama, you would probably hear more criticism from the Democrats. But the tactic of opposing every Obama position at bull blast only forces the Democrats together to defend their team. Much of what you don't like is created by the guys on your side.

    Hope that answered your question, if not, just ask it again. But type slower next time, sometimes I have trouble keeping up.

    Also, if you would, explain to me why the Obama Administration would lie about the terror attack in Benghazi. In other words, what is the upside for Obama to say it was a demonstration? I've never heard any logical reason that explains why the Obama administration would want to lie, just that they did. The most logical explanation is the CIA messed up. But the GOP doesn't say that happened, they spin some secret plan to hide the truth. and scream Watergate and use the loss of 4 guys as political game fodder. You know more about this area of the world than most of us, what reason could Obama have for not calling this a terror attack at the beginning other than Obama is an secret evil muslim terrorist out to destroy america. which seems to be the current GOP theme.

    thanx
    Good points in the first paragraph. I stand corrected. As to the second, I don't know what the motivation was behind the repeated false explanations of the Benghazi attacks in relation to (r being caused by the video and a spontaneous demonstration that smehow went awry. Thats what I want answered. We know they knew this was a deliberate attack that night. We know they maintained otherwise after that time. Wy? I don't know, but I would like to. It is logical that the CIA messed up. But let's confirm where the **** up happened before we chalk this up to a CIA consipracy, mistake, or whatever it was. That's the whole point. We don't need to speculate on why it happened until the evidence tells us just that.

    We should have had these answers by the end of September. an

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,101
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    This is ********. So it all came down to two options, eh? 1. Call it a terrorist attack, naming the groups suspected in being involved, or 2. Make up **** about it being about the video. Can't be anything else. Can't be any variation thereof. It must fit into a box that suits our particular political agenda.

    No. Once again this is ********. And I love being painted in with 9/11 truthers and birhters. This could ahve been easily solved by just saying the truth without giving up too much informaiton.

    "There was an attack against the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and it appears from the tactics and weapons used this was more than a simple spontaneous mob- at this time it appears to have been a planned, well coordinated attack. We are investigating who may have been involved , and how exactly it was able to have been carried out. As the invesitagation into this matter yields informaiton that we can share, we will make that information available. It is important for all of us not to reach to conclusions before we have all the information. We will commit every available resource to fully investigate this attack, and our respnse to it as quickly as possible. This heinous attack against a US consulate will not be forgotten. We are committed to finding those responsible and bringing them to justice."

    There. Was that so hard? Polish that crappy little paragraph up and it would have served the WH better than the "whole load" we got from them. Are you really going to sit there and defend what was so blatantly repeated false statements about this? Even if someone fed him misinformation, its still false. If so, it only proves my point in the other thread. Obama can not, under any circumstance, ever do anything that might ever possibly bear scrutiny or criticism in the eyes of some in this forum. He can literally do no wrong. It is the one thing in this forum I have found really interesting. Every right leaning person in here has criticized W and many other republicans. I don't remember the last time I ever heard one left leaning individual in this forum ever so much as slightly criticize, or even question Obama. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I honestly don't remember seeing it.
    This hearing was all about scrutinizing the President and his actions. You just don't like the reality that it has revealed.

    As for criticizing the President, I personally have started several threads and made literally hundreds of comments doing exactly that. Remember my thread on assassinating American citizens, to provide but one example?
    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
    ― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,115
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    This hearing was all about scrutinizing the President and his actions. You just don't like the reality that it has revealed.

    As for criticizing the President, I personally have started several threads and made literally hundreds of comments doing exactly that. Remember my thread on assassinating American citizens, to provide but one example?
    The hearing should have been about what information was known and exactly when, and what each respective agency did (or didn't do) in response to that information. As far as me not liking the answers, Its not for me to like or not like, Its for us to know what the **** happened on 9/11/12. I already don't like the results. Four people died. That's what matters to me.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,101
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    The hearing should have been about what information was known and exactly when, and what each respective agency did (or didn't do) in response to that information. As far as me not liking the answers, Its not for me to like or not like, Its for us to know what the **** happened on 9/11/12. I already don't like the results. Four people died. That's what matters to me.
    Many Republicans, and apparently you, decided before the investigation began that this "scandal" was worse than Watergate. They did this without a credible allegation of a crime having been committed, or credible evidence of a cover up having taken place. I rarely agree with pro-life Mormons, but one of them got it right this time.

    Did you freak out and fling around baseless accusations when these other 13 embassy attacks took place since 2000? When many more Americans died in them? When the GOP cut funds for embassy security after most of them occurred? If not, what makes this attack so very much different from all those others?
    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
    ― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    The only time you're "painted in with 9/11 Truthers" is when you start claiming that Petraeus' choices were either leave the CIA and not testify (despite the fact that he did it anyway), or be killed. When the whole affair story first broke, it was the first conclusion people jumped to. It couldn't be that he simply had an affair, it had to be connected to Bengazi, and had to be part of a massive coverup, and there had to be threats on his life, and other people had to be collateral damage...

    That is what gets you painted with the Truthers.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •