Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.

[cheri1122]

Based on the current SECSTATE, competence and qualifications don't seem to be high on the list for this particular cabinet position. Of course Obama didn't score too well in those two areas either.


As is usually the case with Obama, it's all about appearances instead of substance. The GOP needs to get better at their production of these media events. This news conference should have put Sen Ayotte in front of the cameras with McCain and Graham on either side in support roles.

Given the following two sentences, your assertion re: Obama is too funny. Who's all about appearances, then?

Hint: it"s the party that just got it's a^^ handed to it, and has now decided that 'rebranding' is in order. Yep: like the corporate braniacs: SOS, different package [with brighter colors & robust graphics, yeah, that's the ticket] and the dummies will buy it.
Good luck with that strategy.

She is very capable and could easily have taken the lead in making the necessary points about Rice's participation in the internet video sham. But Rice is just a pawn in the larger cover-up effort.

Considering the loss of life in Benghazi, the primary focus of any investigation by the Senate or House should be to determine:
(1) who failed to provide the necessary levels of security for our people in Libya?
(2) who failed to give the orders that would have allowed our forces to fight off and possibly rescue our people from their terrorist attackers?
This responsibility falls on the White House and State Dept; one is in the "direct denial" mode, and the other is MIA - Hillary conveniently on the other side of the planet right now.

 

[Pilgrim]

Given the following two sentences, your assertion re: Obama is too funny. Who's all about appearances, then?

Not funny at all since that's exactly my point - they need to have a better marketing campaign.

Hint: it"s the party that just got it's a^^ handed to it, and has now decided that 'rebranding' is in order. Yep: like the corporate braniacs: SOS, different package [with brighter colors & robust graphics, yeah, that's the ticket] and the dummies will buy it. Good luck with that strategy.

Yes, different package but not the SOS. They need to get away from trying to be Democrat lite and offer better candidates. Maybe going with true conservatives that believe in letting people live their lives with minimal govt interference, lower taxes, maintaining a strong military and promoting a strong economy based on a thriving private sector instead of a nanny state. But future political campaigns (aka "packaging") - forget about the nice guy stuff, play to win and get down & dirty if necessary. It sure seems to work for the Democrats.

 

[muttly]

Nope - that's a strawman of your own construction - I never said any such thing.

But hey ... if logical fallacy is the best ya got, then I say:

"Governor ... please proceed ..."

FWIW, it's my opinion that the GOP is so inclined towards politicization and obstructionism that they need slapped down ... hard ... and if the results of the election weren't enough to get them to rethink their ongoing stupidity, then by all means: please bring on further political humiliation.

And I'll sit back and partake in a little Schadenfreude as it occurs ... with the hope that wiser minds will eventually prevail ...

Regardless of the results of an election, it is the duty of elected officials to objectively look at the merits of an individual with regards to their competancy, qualifications, and temperment for the job.Each new job requires a new evaluation. Again your giddiness in wanting to see a particular optics situation appears to rival a Chris Mathews "thrill" moment. So there is not really a straw argument from what I can tell. Your comments that they want to politicize a Rice nomination appears to based on nothing but partisan thinkdom. If you choose to cling to a flawed position, how do you explain Susan Rice's unaminous confirmation four years ago ? Booyah

 

[muttly]

Based on the current SECSTATE, competence and qualifications don't seem to be high on the list for this particular cabinet position. Of course Obama didn't score too well in those two areas either.


As is usually the case with Obama, it's all about appearances instead of substance. The GOP needs to get better at their production of these media events. This news conference should have put Sen Ayotte in front of the cameras with McCain and Graham on either side in support roles. She is very capable and could easily have taken the lead in making the necessary points about Rice's participation in the internet video sham. But Rice is just a pawn in the larger cover-up effort.

Considering the loss of life in Benghazi, the primary focus of any investigation by the Senate or House should be to determine:
(1) who failed to provide the necessary levels of security for our people in Libya?
(2) who failed to give the orders that would have allowed our forces to fight off and possibly rescue our people from their terrorist attackers?
This responsibility falls on the White House and State Dept; one is in the "direct denial" mode, and the other is MIA - Hillary conveniently on the other side of the planet right now.

Agree, the questions you posed are the most important and demand answers.I'm concerned about the altered talking points because our elected officials need to be held accountable and speak the truth. The Whitehouse is on the record as saying they didn't alter them . Oh ok. Isn't it odd though, that they STILL haven't said who did? Like, they don't know?(Because they do know,but aren't saying.)Hillary on the other side of the planet is correct: Australia. She should be back in the U.S. answering questions.

 

[Pilgrim]

Regardless of the results of an election, it is the duty of elected officials to objectively look at the merits of an individual with regards to their competancy, qualifications, and temperment for the job.Each new job requires a new evaluation. Again your giddiness in wanting to see a particular optics situation appears to rival a Chris Mathews "thrill" moment. So there is not really a straw argument from what I can tell. Your comments that they want to politicize a Rice nomination appears to based on nothing but partisan thinkdom. If you choose to cling to a flawed position, how do you explain Susan Rice's unaminous confirmation four years ago ? Booyah

That Susan Rice would take a line of political spin (dictated by a White House that's engaged in an election campaign) which can be easily contradicted by existing evidence should call into question her fitness for a position like SECSTATE. Congress, members of the press and everyone else have every right to question why she would go on five national TV shows and promote a false narrative. With that in mind it's probably fair to say her nomination for SECSTATE depended on her cooperation. Looking to the future, the GOP has a good foundation to regroup and offer some solid young candidates for the coming elections in 2014-16 just as the Democrats did after consecutive defeats in 2000-04. Their prospects will certainly be enhanced if Obama's socialistic policies push the economy into the 2d dip of recession. Combine this scenario with what's likely to happen in the Middle East (Iran nukes), and all those buy gold or silver ads on TV don't look so bad after all; just bury your coins in your back yard.

 

[RLENT]

Thanks for making my point. The fact that most of the lame stream media,other than Fox News would give a preponderance of the coverage and minimize Kelly Ayotte is what I'm referring to.

Actually, I didn't make your point ... you are speaking - apparently - from a position of ignorance - evidently stove-piped on a single event - a press conference by the three aforementioned individuals.

The fact of the matter, is that there have been additional media appearances beyond that single event by all the parties involved - including Ayotte - as evidenced by her appearance on Andrea Mitchell's program. These appearances have both preceded and followed the joint press conference in question.

The media list given in your first sentence is a clear indication that you are misinformed by one of your following statements " My observations are accurate based on what I watched." Again, given that erroneus information, one would give an innaccurate statement on here as to what took place at the News conference. The fact that the FEMALE Sen. Kelly Ayotte was there and also gave a statement about her concerns was lost on you as you gave your opinion about the "optics" of ONLY the two white male GOP senators criticisng the well thought of, black female.

Ahhh ... there's where your making your mistake - you apparently think my comments (regarding McLame and Graham), in which I linked a particular article that referred to that press conference, were only in reference to that single news conference, in which Ayotte participated - they weren't.

You're focused on a single event, and trying to constrain my comments to it ... while I am focused on the broad amount of coverage of which, that particular conference, is only a part of.

Now I understand why you are confused, and as a consequence, completely mistaken.

Can't let an inconvenent fact like Kelly Ayotte being there get into your false narrative.

My narrative isn't false at all ... over the last week or so, I have spent a good deal of time watching TV, flipping around to various channels - by my observation McCain and Graham were featured far more often than Ayotte, with McCain foremost, with Graham in second, and Ayotte in a distant third.

This wasn't just that particular press conference, but single station interviews with done with a single senator, often done in the Capitol ...

And it isn't entirely surprising that the amount of coverage would fall as it does - given the relative seniority of the individuals involved. Graham and McCain are both senior senators for their respective states and Ayotte is the junior senator from her state - and hasn't even completed her first term, which she is less than two years into.

Beyond that it's my general opinion, based on having seen Ayotte speak to the matter, that she is not as rabid as McLame and the Toe Tapper ... could be something to that, in terms of her not trying to be as big of a media ***** as McLame or Graham ... hence less coverage ...

I realize that the above reality doesn't validate your "vast left-wing media" conspiracy theory that poor Kelly is being suppressed, but the relative seniority does factor into it.

Seriously, did the Barry supporters sign up for four more years of this racial and sexist politicking? Telling idnit?
Oooh...lookie here. The President did the same thing. He conveniently ommitted Kelly Ayotte from his remarks. "John McCain,Lindsey Graham, and others......"

ROTFLMAO ... you, Focks Nooz, BreitFart, and whoever else can sing that tune until you're blue in the face ... but it won't change the fact that McLame and Graham have been the out-front, point people on attacking Rice and pontificating on Benghazi, and have gotten the vast amount of media coverage as a consequence ... at least the coverage I've seen (which I have no reason to suspect is not representative)

That fact alone will drive the general perception of it ... and no amount of "spin" or protesting the lack of coverage of the "tokenism" of having Ayotte speak out a relatively few times (in comparison to the McLame and the Toe Tapper) will alter the optics of it ...

In the end, you're just preaching to the choir ... and if you haven't yet figured out how well that worked out as a recent tactic/strategy, check 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to see who is slated to live there for the next four years ...

BTW - you might wanna check your spell-checker - it doesn't seem to be working ...

 

[RLENT]

Given the following two sentences, your assertion re: Obama is too funny. Who's all about appearances, then?

Hint: it"s the party that just got it's a^^ handed to it, and has now decided that 'rebranding' is in order. Yep: like the corporate braniacs: SOS, different package [with brighter colors & robust graphics, yeah, that's the ticket] and the dummies will buy it.
Good luck with that strategy.

It's a total crack-up ain't it ?

I've heard the exact same sort of stupidity out of the talking head class for days now - they think they can add a few tokens - a black face here, a female face there, and a couple of brown ones - along with a burrito or two and a side order of tamales - and they'll be golden ...

It's all motivated, not by any real, genuine interest in these folks (and their issues) that they would seek to represent, but simply a craven effort to regain power ...

Ultimate result: FAIL

What a bunch of chuckleheads ...

 

[RLENT]

Regardless of the results of an election, it is the duty of elected officials to objectively look at the merits of an individual with regards to their competancy, qualifications, and temperment for the job. Each new job requires a new evaluation.

Indeed ... and it is primarily the Executive's prerogative and it within his sole power to nominate ...

The Senate only has the power to advise and consent ... as a body ...

A Senator can certainly place a "hold" on a nomination to stop it ... these holds were never intended to be used to "block" something (nomination, bill) permanently however ... but only to allow a senator time to study the matter. To the extent they are used for any other purpose it's obstruction.

That "hold" can be removed by a motion invoking cloture, which presently requires 3/5ths majority (60) vote.

In the coming Congress, the Democrats will hold 53 seats, plus the two independents, who will caucus with them ... that means that they only need to peel off 5 Republicans to invoke cloture ... and move the nomination to the floor for a vote - which only requires a simple majority for confirmation.

But more importantly, the above (holds, cloture) is based on the current rules of the Senate ... and the Senate can vote (by simple majority) to change it's rules on the first day of a session (nuclear option) ...

And it's looking more and more like that this coming year that the filibuster, in it's present incarnation, may well get that very treatment and be removed as an easy tool to obstruct ... IOW, if you wanna filibuster, get out the phone book and take the lecturn ... ain't gonna be no mo' filibustering from the comfort of your Senate office:

Reluctant Democrats should step up on filibuster reform

Of course Republicans will filibuster Obama's Cabinet nominees

Beyond the above, I think Harry Reid has demonstrated his ability to influence what goes on in the upper body ... and if McPrick or the Toe-Tapper want to obstruct the process - which ultimately is supposed to be an up or down majority vote - I'm sure ol' Harry can make life difficult in a variety of ways ... to the point that the minority leadership will pressure them to let it go ...

Again your giddiness in wanting to see a particular optics situation appears to rival a Chris Mathews "thrill" moment.

Well, thank Gawd it's only a Matthews "thrill" moment ... and not an O'Really or Shammity vein-busting, projectile drool rant moment ...

Matthews I can live with ... the other two imbeciles not so much ...

I could actually care less about the optics of the confirmation process (although I'm sure it could be quite entertaining in and of itself) ... what I'm really interested in is reform of the GOP as a party.

The GOP is like a bad little puppy who pooped in the middle of the living room ... it needs it's nose rubbed in it ... possibly repeatedly ...

So there is not really a straw argument from what I can tell.

Heheheh ... based on the construction of yet another straw man ...

Too funny ...

Your comments that they want to politicize a Rice nomination appears to based on nothing but partisan thinkdom.

I didn't say that at all - that's merely your perception of it - nor are my comments based on it.

You consider that the President putting forward a nominee of his choosing, based on who he feels is best to do the job, and then fighting for that nominee, to be "politicization" ?

From my perspective, it's the opposition of that nominee that is far more likely to be politicized.

Reality is some people probably ain't gonna like whoever it is ... but ya can't please all of the people all of the time ...

My advice: Tough ... suck it up and move on ... because the likelihood is the GOP probably isn't going to be able to do much about it if he chooses to nominate Rice ...

Other than have the two retards get up and bloviate of course ... which will no doubt be highly entertaining ...

There's a definite reason why some in the GOP leadership are sounding off with "make nice" noises ... why don't you see if you can figure out why that is ?

If you choose to cling to a flawed position, how do you explain Susan Rice's unaminous confirmation four years ago ?

Geezus man ... are you really serious ?

Booyah

Tell ya what - why don't you lemme know how that "Booyah" seems ... right after the GOP takes the high hard one up the posterior on the first day of the next session of the Senate ...

 

[davekc]

It's a total crack-up ain't it ?

I've heard the exact same sort of stupidity out of the talking head class for days now - they think they can add a few tokens - a black face here, a female face there, and a couple of brown ones - along with a burrito or two and a side order of tamales - and they'll be golden ...

It's all motivated, not by any real, genuine interest in these folks (and their issues) that they would seek to represent, but simply a craven effort to regain power ...

Ultimate result: FAIL

What a bunch of chuckleheads ...

And fail they did and will continue to do so unless that "rebranding" comes with some gifts. Probably going to take more than a "buritto" though.
Democrats care as much about the general public as the republicans. But did exercise the free agenda to percieve they do. Republicans offered nothing and lost.
What was offered? Just a few starting with Obamacare. Free healthcare for many. change in college loans. New housing program with down payments up to 15k. Extended unemployment benefits followed by change in work requirements for welfare.
But maybe not enough. For good measure they threw in gay marriage (Obama changed his mind) but still they needed more impact. Followed that with a expansion of Reagans communication act to provide free or discounted cable/internet with vouchers for free computers. Probably should add free cell phones as well. (gotta like the Obamaphones!)
And for a lasting touch, they threw free contraception in to bolster the female vote and free amnesty for some illegals.
Probably a few more but those come to mind quickly and apparently they worked.

 

[RLENT]

Dave,

In case you missed the memo: correlation does not necessarily equal causation ...

 

[Pilgrim]

And fail they did and will continue to do so unless that "rebranding" comes with some gifts. Probably going to take more than a "buritto" though.
Democrats care as much about the general public as the republicans. But did exercise the free agenda to percieve they do. Republicans offered nothing and lost.
What was offered? Just a few starting with Obamacare. Free healthcare for many. change in college loans. New housing program with down payments up to 15k. Extended unemployment benefits followed by change in work requirements for welfare.
But maybe not enough. For good measure they threw in gay marriage (Obama changed his mind) but still they needed more impact. Followed that with a expansion of Reagans communication act to provide free or discounted cable/internet with vouchers for free computers. Probably should add free cell phones as well. (gotta like the Obamaphones!)
And for a lasting touch, they threw free contraception in to bolster the female vote and free amnesty for some illegals.
Probably a few more but those come to mind quickly and apparently they worked.

In addition to the freebies, let's not forget about the takeaways by Obama and the dismantling of institutions that have in the past made this country great:

1. His attempts to destroy capitlaism and the free enterprise system - successful private business is evil and it's executives are greedy. Therefore, the portion of their earnings deemed excessive by the State must be confiscated and "spread around" in the name of fairness.
2. Religion - look no further than his administration's current attack on the Catholic church. Who'll be next - Southern Baptists?
3. The Military - he promised in a campaign speech in 2007 to gut our military structure, and in a
2d term no doubt he'll continue to follow through with that promise. Remember this YouTube clip? Obama-Caucus4Priorities - YouTube

All this is part of Barack Hussein Obama's pledge to "fundamentally transform America" and an ignorant, gullible public has just signed up for four more years of it.

 

[davekc]

Dave,

In case you missed the memo: correlation does not necessarily equal causation ...

No....I think this memo is clear and the correlation has equalled the causation if you will.
Obviously the republicans have some "changin" to do but any of that will have little value without some gifts. Changing demographics clearly show that. If that is not the case, then I would love to hear how it would be possible.
Don't forget, you now have roughly half the country recieving some type of government assistance. Some entitled and some are not. Still doesn't change the numbers though.

 

[Pilgrim]

Don't forget, you now have roughly half the country recieving some type of government assistance. Some entitled and some are not. Still doesn't change the numbers though.

What the heck, let's all sign up today. It's easy... Benefits.gov - Your Path to Government Benefits

What is Benefits.gov?

>The official benefits website of the U.S. government

>Informs citizens of benefits they may be eligible for

>Provides information on how to apply for assistance

>Learn about FREE MONEY and GRANTS

 

[RLENT]

Expect the relative importances and focus to now change from "The American People Were Mislead and Lied To ..." to "It Really Is Just A Matter Of A Security Failure And Always Was ..." for the Party of Mental Retardation ...

Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community

By Pam Benson

The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.

Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.

"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.

The September 11 attack resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Some Republican members of Congress suggested the change came from within the Obama administration - from the White House, the Justice Department, or another government agency.

Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.

"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback," Turner said, referring to the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and FBI. "There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community," he said.

The White House on Friday said it made only one change, substituting the word "mission" for "consulate."

The FBI requested a change in language which originally stated the U.S. "knew" Islamic extremists participated in the attack. According to a U.S. intelligence official the wording was changed to "there are indications" Islamic extremists participated.

The drumbeat of criticism began early on with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration for publicly saying the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest against an anti Muslim video on the web even though the Republicans claim the administration knew it was a planned terrorist attack.

The harshest criticism has focused on Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who used the talking points as the basis for comments she made on Sunday talk shows five days after the attack. During her appearances, Rice said a small number of people came to the mission in reaction to demonstrations occurring in Cairo over the anti-Muslim film, but the Benghazi protest was hijacked by armed extremists. She never mentioned terrorists.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said this isn't about parsing words. "There was some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had. That's my concern," Rogers said last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Former CIA Director Petraeus told lawmakers last Friday there were multiple streams of intelligence, some that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. But other intelligence indicated the violence at the Benghazi mission was inspired by protests in Egypt over the anti Muslim video.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.

CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.

Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community

The advantage to a measured, deliberative release of information as it is discovered and compiled ?

... the ignorant, stupid, and ill-motivated among us make themselves known ... by self-proclamation ...

 

[davekc]

Expect the relative importances and focus to now change from "The American People Were Mislead and Lied To ..." to "It Really Is Just A Matter Of A Security Failure And Always Was ..." for the Party of Mental Retardation ...



Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community

The advantage to a measured, deliberative release of information as it is discovered and compiled ?

... the ignorant, stupid, and ill-motivated among us make themselves known ... by self-proclamation ...

And there lies the problem. I can't say they outright lied about it, but the dems answers have been all over the place. It would be one thing IF this was the results of information after a week or two. Just not the case. This has went on for over two months and only now are answers starting to trickle in. Still more investigations to go. Have to look at ALL of the picture, not just the parts you might want to see. Most of it is really just political game playing that always goes on. I don't see anything different here if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[RLENT]

More details - including repeated confirmation that former terrorist fund-raiser and New York Rep. Peter King has memory difficulties, and is also incorrect (or just lying) about who took out the reference to A-Q:

Petraeus to Congress: CIA believed early on that terrorists were behind Libya consulate attack

WASHINGTON — Testifying out of sight, ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus’ private briefings.
He also said it initially was unclear whether the militants had infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why its public description did not match intelligence agencies’ assessments.

After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA’s draft talking points in response to the assault on the diplomatic post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. Petraeus said that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it.

Adding to the explanation, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the points said later that a reason the references to al-Qaida were deleted was that the information came from classified sources and the links were, and still are, tenuous. The administration also did not want to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages, that official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the process publicly.

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

“The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “He completely debunked that idea.”

But Republicans remain critical of the administration’s handling of the case. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Petraeus’ 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.”

In fact, Petraeus told lawmakers that protesters literally walked in and set fire to the facility, according to a congressional official who attended the briefing. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation. Petraeus said security at the CIA annex was much better, but the attackers had armaments to get in.

Separately on Friday, the Democratic leader in the Senate rejected a request from John McCain and two other senators for a Watergate-style congressional committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. In a letter to McCain, Sen. Harry Reid said several committees in the House and Senate are already investigating and he would not allow the Senate to be used as a “venue for baseless partisan attacks.” Republican House Speaker John Boehner also said this week that a special committee was not necessary.

Petraeus, who had a long and distinguished military career, was giving his first Capitol Hill testimony since resigning last week in disgrace over an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Lawmakers said he did not discuss that scandal except to express regret about the circumstances of his departure and say that Benghazi had nothing to do with his decision to resign.

He was brought to a secure room beneath the Capitol, avoiding crowds of photographers and television cameras.

Petraeus testified that the CIA draft written in response to the raid referred to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb but that those names were replaced with the word “extremist” in the final draft, according to a congressional staff member. The staffer said Petraeus testified that he allowed other agencies to alter the talking points as they saw fit without asking for final review, to get them out quickly.

The congressional officials weren’t authorized to discuss the hearing publicly and described Petraeus’ testimony to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Petraeus explained that the CIA’s draft points were sent to other intelligence agencies and to some federal agencies for review. Udall said Petraeus told them the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including him, and everyone signed off on it.

“The assessment that was publicly shared in unclassified talking points went through a process of editing,” Udall said. “The extremist description was put in because in an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said it remained unclear how the final talking points developed. The edited version was used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack when the White House sent her out for a series of television interviews. Republicans have criticized Rice for saying it appeared the attack was sparked by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

“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.”

King said Petraeus had briefed the House committee on Sept. 14, and he did not recall Petraeus being so positive at that time that it was a terrorist attack. “He thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement,” King said. “That was not my recollection.”

After two hours with Petraeus, the Democratic chairman of the Senate’s intelligence committee and the panel’s top Republican sparred over Rice’s televised comments.

Chairman Dianne Feinstein of California said Rice relied on “unclassified talking points at a very early stage. ... I don’t think she should have been pilloried for this.”

Feinstein recalled the faulty intelligence of the George W. Bush administration, used to justify the invasion of Iraq in concluding that country had weapons of mass destruction.

“A lot of people were killed based on bad intelligence,” she said. Feinstein added that mistakes were made in the initial intelligence on Benghazi, but she said, “I don’t think that’s fair game” to blame Rice — who has been mentioned as a possible nominee for secretary of state. “To say she is unqualified to be secretary of state I think is a mistake.”

Top committee Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said Rice had gone beyond the talking points.

“She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaida. She knew at that point in time that al-Qaida was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens,” Chambliss said.

Schiff, the California congressman, said Petraeus had said Rice’s comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Schiff said. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.”

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said it’s clear that Rice “used the unclassified talking points that the entire intelligence community signed off on, so she did completely the appropriate thing.” He said the changes made to the draft account for the discrepancies with some of the reports that were made public showing that the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack all along.

Lawmakers spent hours Thursday interviewing top intelligence and national security officials, trying to determine what intelligence agencies knew before, during and after the attack. They were shown a video to illustrate the chronology of the attack, which edited together security video from the consulate and surveillance footage taken by an unarmed CIA Predator drone, and even local Libyan cellphone footage taken from YouTube showing Stevens being carried out by people who looked like they were trying to rescue him.

A U.S. official who viewed it said the video shows clearly there was no demonstration prior to the attack, and then, suddenly armed men started streaming into the mission. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

Petraeus to Congress: CIA believed early on that terrorists were behind Libya consulate attack

My apologies to Muttly - I realize now that I have failed to give Rep. King the full credit due for his part in pushing the partisan stupidity - but I'll certainly try and make up for it in the future.

 

[RLENT]

And there lies the problem. I can't say they outright lied about it, but the dems answers have been all over the place.

To what are you referring ?

Specific examples ?

Can you explain your above statement and how it is so - by providing the specific context to which you are referring ?

It would be one thing IF this was the results of information after a week or two. Just not the case. This has went on for over two months and only now are answers starting to trickle in.

Well, there has been a lot going on ... LOL ...

Personally, I'm more inclined to have the folks involved in providing those "answers" be focused on catching the perpetrators ... rather than answering a few bloviating blowhards from the political opposition, whose intent seems to be exploitation of a tragedy for crass political purposes ...

Of course, YMMV ...

Still more investigations to go ...

... nowhere ...

Have to look at ALL of the picture, not just the parts you might want to see.

Coming from you - of all people - that's entirely hilarious ... truly ...

Most of it is really just political game playing that always goes on.

I agree - that it is what is ...

Maybe at some the Repugnants will grow up ...

 

[Pilgrim]

And there lies the problem. I can't say they outright lied about it, but the dems answers have been all over the place. It would be one thing IF this was the results of information after a week or two. Just not the case. This has went on for over two months and only now are answers starting to trickle in.

With all the sideshows from the Army generals, politicians and their concubines, etc. it's easy for the media to push the core issues to the side. Four good men including our Libyan ambassador died because of the negligence and/or incompetence of somebody in our State Dept. The White House spin machine at the very least obfuscated, but more likely covered up this travesty in order to get past election day. Hillary Clinton "takes responsibility" from somewhere in South America, then takes cover in Austrailia. If something like this had happened during a Republican administration the Democrats would be screaming for heads on a pike. If a special prosecuter was appointed to investigate the "outing" of a non-covert bimbo like Valerie Plame, why can't we get a similar process to delve into administrative malfeasance that resulted in our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans losing their lives?

 

[muttly]

Actually, I didn't make your point ... you are speaking - apparently - from a position of ignorance - evidently stove-piped on a single event - a press conference by the three aforementioned individuals.

The fact of the matter, is that there have been additional media appearances beyond that single event by all the parties involved - including Ayotte - as evidenced by her appearance on Andrea Mitchell's program. These appearances have both preceded and followed the joint press conference in question.


Ahhh ... there's where your making your mistake - you apparently think my comments (regarding McLame and Graham), in which I linked a particular article that referred to that press conference, were only in reference to that single news conference, in which Ayotte participated - they weren't.

You're focused on a single event, and trying to constrain my comments to it ... while I am focused on the broad amount of coverage of which, that particular conference, is only a part of.

Now I understand why you are confused, and as a consequence, completely mistaken.


My narrative isn't false at all ... over the last week or so, I have spent a good deal of time watching TV, flipping around to various channels - by my observation McCain and Graham were featured far more often than Ayotte, with McCain foremost, with Graham in second, and Ayotte in a distant third.

This wasn't just that particular press conference, but single station interviews with done with a single senator, often done in the Capitol ...

And it isn't entirely surprising that the amount of coverage would fall as it does - given the relative seniority of the individuals involved. Graham and McCain are both senior senators for their respective states and Ayotte is the junior senator from her state - and hasn't even completed her first term, which she is less than two years into.

Beyond that it's my general opinion, based on having seen Ayotte speak to the matter, that she is not as rabid as McLame and the Toe Tapper ... could be something to that, in terms of her not trying to be as big of a media ***** as McLame or Graham ... hence less coverage ...

I realize that the above reality doesn't validate your "vast left-wing media" conspiracy theory that poor Kelly is being suppressed, but the relative seniority does factor into it.


ROTFLMAO ... you, Focks Nooz, BreitFart, and whoever else can sing that tune until you're blue in the face ... but it won't change the fact that McLame and Graham have been the out-front, point people on attacking Rice and pontificating on Benghazi, and have gotten the vast amount of media coverage as a consequence ... at least the coverage I've seen (which I have no reason to suspect is not representative)

That fact alone will drive the general perception of it ... and no amount of "spin" or protesting the lack of coverage of the "tokenism" of having Ayotte speak out a relatively few times (in comparison to the McLame and the Toe Tapper) will alter the optics of it ...

In the end, you're just preaching to the choir ... and if you haven't yet figured out how well that worked out as a recent tactic/strategy, check 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to see who is slated to live there for the next four years ...

BTW - you might wanna check your spell-checker - it doesn't seem to be working ...

Ayotte:tokenism? The lib mindsight has really taken hold I see.Too bad. A women speaks at a news conference and they are considered just a prop. Then when the GOP doesn't happen to have a women or minority present at a event it's always how come the GOP is full of white guys? Got to love them libs they are always playing identity politics. Regarding the current resident in the w.h. I didn't vote for that and what he represents. Congrats . Just be careful what you asked for though,because it surely on the way and all the calamity it will bring for this country.

Hmmm. looks like someone didn't quite come off so well and might have alienated part of his constiuency.Kirsten pretty much nailed it.
Typical right winger.

President Obama's silly, sexist defense of Susan Rice | Fox News

 

[muttly]

It's a total crack-up ain't it ?

I've heard the exact same sort of stupidity out of the talking head class for days now - they think they can add a few tokens - a black face here, a female face there, and a couple of brown ones - along with a burrito or two and a side order of tamales - and they'll be golden ...

It's all motivated, not by any real, genuine interest in these folks (and their issues) that they would seek to represent, but simply a craven effort to regain power ...

Ultimate result: FAIL

What a bunch of chuckleheads ...

Your analysis that there isn't a genuine interest in those folks and their issues is a ignorant comment and untrue.