White House says it didn’t edit Benghazi talking points -- The Washington Times

[bsteadman]

White House says it didn’t edit Benghazi talking points

The Washington Times
Dave Boyer
11/17/2012

Excerpt:

The White House Saturday refuted testimony by former CIA Director David Petraeus to Congress, saying the administration didn’t make changes in its early talking points about the attack of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, to downplay the role of terrorists.

White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes instead suggested that the CIA itself may have made “adjustments” to remove references to terrorism from the agency’s early, unclassified reports to the administration about the assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Mr. Rhodes told reporters the only change made by the White House to the CIA’s initial reports was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.” - (bold and color emphasis added)

“Other than that, we worked off of the [talking] points that were provided by the intelligence community,” Mr. Rhodes told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One with President Obama on a trip to southeast Asia. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made within the intelligence community. If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves within the intelligence community.”

On Friday, Mr. Petraeus told a congressional committee investigating the Libya attack that the CIA’s references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points. Other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Critics have repeatedly questioned the sequence of events and motivations of the attackers offered by top Obama administration officials in the months since the incident on Sept. 11. Some Republican senators have been especially critical of Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who said on TV talk shows in the week after the attack that it appeared to be related to Arab uprisings over an anti-Islam video produced in the U.S.

Mr. Rhodes said the statements by Mrs. Rice and other administration officials “were informed by unclassified talking points” from the intelligence community.
..............................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...zi-talking-po/

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'White House says did not heavily edit talking points on Benghazi', which was started 11/17/2012 by 'Sub-Driver'

The thread references a 11/17/2012 Reuters article - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...e=domesticNews

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2960622/posts

[bsteadman]

Former FBI Agents Skeptical of Petraeus Probe

Newsmax
Ronald Kessler
11/19/2012

Excerpt:

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — Former FBI agents who held key positions in the bureau are expressing skepticism about the timing of the investigation that led to David Petraeus being told to resign as CIA director a day after the election.

Last Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. defended the handling of the inquiry, saying it proceeded in an impartial way. Since no threat to national security was uncovered, there was no reason to inform President Barack Obama of the investigation, Holder said.

“We follow the facts,” Holder said. “We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations.”

The FBI’s probe into threatening and suspicious emails sent by Petraeus’ mistress Paula Broadwell began last spring. Around 5 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 6, the FBI notified the executive branch of the investigation with a call to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.

Holder said a “critical interview” on Friday, Nov. 2, with Broadwell dictated when the president would be notified. Holder did not explain why the interview happened to be scheduled four days before the election rather than earlier.

As noted in my story "FBI Suppressed Petraeus Scandal to Protect President," I was contacted on Oct. 10 by a longtime FBI source who told me that a bureau investigation had uncovered Petraeus’ affair and that it could potentially jeopardize national security. The veteran agent said that FBI agents assigned to the case were outraged by what senior officials told them: The FBI was going to hold their findings in limbo until after the election.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” the FBI source told me. “To leave him [Petraeus] in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Contrary to what Holder said, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III meets at least once a week with the president and routinely informs him of highly sensitive investigations and threats. Given its ramifications, an FBI investigation of the CIA director would qualify to be at the top of that list.

An administrative subpoena would have identified the computers sending the emails, which could be traced in less than an hour, says a former FBI agent who wasinvolved with tracking and intercepting communications.

The FBI special agent in charge of the Tampa office, where Jill Kelley complained about the harassing emails, would have signed off on the administrative subpoenas. A subpoena would be needed to obtain the content of the emails.

“Tracing the emails with an administrative subpoena could have been completed within a day,” the former agent says. “It should not have taken months. A first office agent could have done this,” referring to a new agent assigned to his first field office.

In looking for relevant material, FBI agents initially mistook a reference to “under the desk” in emails between Petraeus and Broadwell to mean a corrupt act. In fact, the reference was to their affair.

Given that the investigation involved the CIA director, “This would have gone up to the seventh floor [where top FBI executives have their offices] immediately,” a former agent says. “Once they knew what they had, I am sure everyone dropped what they were doing, and it became a very serious matter. A subpoena could have been obtained within a matter of days.”

“Why didn’t the bureau make disclosure sooner?” the former agent says. “This guy wasn’t the fish and wildlife commissioner. A lot of agents are scratching their heads. It makes the bureau look like it is hiding something.

"The idea that this took months is ridiculous. It should have taken days. While he remained in office, Petraeus could have been blackmailed. That’s why we are polygraphed every five years. What’s the easiest way to co-opt someone? Through a beautiful woman.”

Former agents universally describe FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III as a man of integrity who would not go along with anything illegal or improper.
................................................

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kes...1/19/id/464684

[bsteadman]

House Intel Chair: 'Appointees from Administration' Changed Rice's Talking Points

CNS News
Susan Jones
11/19/2012

Excerpts:

(CNSNews.com) - Who changed the CIA talking points to minimize the fact that terrorists were behind the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi?

When Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five Sunday talk shows five days later, she was still blaming the attack on a spontaneous protest over an obscure anti-Islam video.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, says the unclassified talking points put together by the CIA changed when they got to administration appointees:

"[T]here was not an intelligence failure," Rogers told "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early. What happened was it worked its way up through the system of the so-called talking points, which everyone refers to, and then it went up to what’s called a deputy’s committee...It went to the so-called deputy’s committee, that’s populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed. And so how that thing got back to (Susan) Rice, I think, is probably another question."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate intelligence committee, appeared with Rogers on "Meet the Press." She was asked why the CIA called the attack terrorism from the beginning -- but Rice did not:

"Because she could speak publicly only on unclassified speaking points," Feinstein said. There was concern about naming a terrorist group "until we had some certainty," Feinstein explained.

"Now, with the allegation that the White House changed those talking points, that is false," Feinstein said. "There is only one thing that was changed, and I’ve checked into this. I believe it to be absolute fact. And that was the word 'consulate' was changed to 'mission'. That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out."
.........................................

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), the vice chair of the Senate intelligence committee, told "Fox News Sunday" that he tried to find out who changed the talking points:

"At the hearing we had on Thursday and Friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there, including folks from the State Department, the FBI -- everybody there was asked, 'Do you know who made these changes?' And nobody knew. The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the White House.
..............................................

On ABC's "This Week," House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) said the talking points changed after they left the CIA: "[S]omewhere after it left the intelligence community, somewhere in the administration, there was very vital language taken out."

King said when the unclassified talking points were sent to the administration -- "we don't know whether it was the White House, the National Security Council, the Justice Department or the Defense Department -- that language was changed. That was not the language that was sent over by the intelligence community."

View the complete article at:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hous...talking-points

[bsteadman]

Hey Obama! We The People Would Like Answers to These Questions on Benghazi

Obama State Ballot Challenge
Pamela Barnett
11/17/2012

Excerpt:

Posted by By Pamela Barnett at 17 November, at 08 : 44 AM

Some commentary and good questions on a post from westernjournalism.com.
willyrho says:

November 16, 2012 at 12:19 pm

The “Holy Grail” of Benghazi is the Kernel of Truth that is Unimaginable by Normal People, but explains all of the motivations for all of the Actions and Non-Actions of all of the actors in Benghazi on 9-11-2012.

That kernel of TRUTH IS: Barack Obama made a Secret Plan with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. The Plan was for Obama to reduce the Security at the Consulate in Benghazi and allow the Muslims to Kidnap Ambassador Stevens. Then the Muslims would trade Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik. The cover for the Kidnapping was established by the Mob Action, introduced in Egypt, by an Anti Muslim movie trailer. The action at Benghazi was supposed to be blamed on the same mob action as in Egypt. - (bold and color emphasis added)

Question: Does anything done by “Any Actor” make any sense, except in the context of “The Plan”.

A few questions that can be explained completely by the “Holy Grail Plan”.

1. Did Obama want to release the Blind Sheik, but had no justifiable reason to do so?
2. Why were 3 MST and 1 SST security details removed from Libya?
3. Why did Hillary request/demand more security, but Obama denied more security, several times?
4. Why were Doherty and Woods told to stand down 3 times?
5. Why did Obama tell the CIA to NOT help defend the Consulate.
6. Why did Obama and his minions watch live video of the attack and not act?
7. Why was an American Drone flying over the consulate recording video before the attack began?
8. Predator Drones carry Hell Fire Missiles, why were none fired?
9. Why were the Seals Lazing a Target, giving away their position and no Hell Fire missiles were fired?
10. Why did Obama blame it on a video that no one (only 17 views on YouTube) had ever seen?
11. Why did Obama fire General Ham for moving to assist the Consulate.
12. Why was an AC-130 Gunship, 90 minutes away, not sent to aid the Consulate.
13. Why were the F-16?s only 20 minutes away not sent to help the consulate.
14 Why is Obama Delaying, Obfuscating and Lying?
15. Why did the plan stick with the plan’s excuse of the Mohammed is an Idiot Movie Trailer?
16. Why did the Ansar al-Sharia try to save Stevens by taking him to a Hospital/Emergency Room.
17. Why did Ansar al-Sharia surround the Hospital where Ambassador Steven’s body was taken and not let anyone in or out?
18. Why was a Libyan Military person photographing the Consulate before the Attack?
19. Why could the President not get an interview with a participating Terrorist for weeks when Senator Lindsey Graham got Tunisia to let the FBI interview him within 24 hours of the request?
20. Why were Senior counter terrorism personnel cut out of the Loop, the Foreign Emergency Security Team was not called.
.................................................. ...

View the complete post at:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/hey-...ns-on-benghazi

[bsteadman]

THE INELIGIBLE AND THE DISLOYAL

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012
GeorgeM
11/17/2012

Excerpt:

(Photo shown in post): Jill Kelley, Marco Rubio, Natalie Khawam

Avid readers know which is which. Both gals have visited the White House– party animal Jill three times. Petraeus mistress Paula Broadwell’s been there as well. Marco wanted, illegally, to be Vice President. Already started on 2016. Things stink to high heaven. We’d be better off with all of them out of the picture. With the election over, I was going to hibernate for a while, but it just seems to get worse and worse. And you’re wondering why we can’t get rid of an ineligible Marxist usurper? I think I’m gonna be sick.
.................................

View the complete post, including many photos, at:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/the-...d-the-disloyal

[bsteadman]

MEDIA “BALDFACE” LIES ABOUT PATRAEUS TESTIMONY TO DEFEND OBAMA’S BENGHAZI FAILURE

The Daily Pen
Dan Crosby
11/16/2012

Excerpt:

THE 1st AMENDMENT WAS MURDERED IN BENGHAZI TOO - Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job. Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

Now, AP Columnists Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler have published an insidious and deceptive story claiming that the reason Obama and members of his administration were justified in lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack was because he was attempting to implement a covert response against the terrorists and did not want to, in their words, “tip them off” to his retaliatory plans.


NEW YORK, NY - The re-election of Barack Obama and defense of his illegitimate executive power has become more important than protecting the lives of innocent Americans, according the liberal mainstream media. Defending Obama’s lies in order to see him achieve his liberal aspirations was more important than protecting American security and providing the truth about the September 11 murder of four innocent Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the hands of terrorist enemies in Benghazi, Libya.

Despite former CIA director David Petraeus' testimony in closed hearings Friday that he has always believed the September 11 attack on a U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism and that it was not a result of a spontaneous demonstration, Obama’s media defenders are toiling to provide excuses for Obama’s failures to respond as well as his outright lies that the attack was the result of a YouTube video.

Intelligence reports also show that Patraeus’ agency actually named specific terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, as those responsible for the attack in its initial reports sent to the Obama administration during and immediately following the attack.
....................................

View the complete article at:

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012...-patraeus.html