Report: Petraeus says CIA approved Ambassador Rice’s initial statements on Benghazi attack

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have been leading a political lynching party against Susan Rice (above), the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, aren’t going to like THIS:

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them…

Rice has been hit by Republicans for weeks for indicating that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi stemmed from a spontaneous protest related to an anti-Islamic video. However, as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has pointed, the talking points used by Rice were the same unclassified points given to both the administration and Congress by the intelligence community.

Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus’ testimony maded clear that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has previously reported that this change in thinking began too late to alter Rice’s talking points.



  1. Ok, so it appears the liberal Obama supporters are out in full-force providing misleading (or let’s say “incomplete”) reporting of what King said and what Petraeus said. It is clear that the whole story is that the original talking points or statement or whatever you want to call it included references to terrorism and were much more specific. Petraeus said that what he wrote about it being terrorism was taken out, but he did not know who did it. And, even if the CIA approved what she said, who in the CIA approved misleading and false statements. The whole reason they sent her (and someone else other than Clapper) is because they needed people who did not have knowledge so those who did know the truth wouldn’t lie. They picked people without knowledge so they could legitimately say they were relying on what they were told and knew nothing else. The problem that everyone seems to miss is that what Rice was given and told was not accurate, and we want to know who gave her the misleading and false information.

  2. RD: Not surprisingly, your conspiracy theory is crapola.

    Here’s the real deal on what Petraeus said today:

    “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.”


    “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.”

    There’s more here:


  3. Brian Opsahl

    Pat, do you think Mcain will give Ms Rice the complete appology she deserves after slamming her all week, just as Fox has done to her also….cause i’m betting NOT
    The liars at Fox will say just about anything they can to get there angry viewers to beleive in there BS and if you read anything Biondo writes it sounds like he took it all from Fox and then trys to report it as real news then complains that the Lame streem Media wont cover Foxes lies… Sad !!

  4. First, anything coming out of the NYT is no longer trustworthy once it became essentially the state-run, progressive, Obama media. Who is to say what you quote is any more accurate than what Peter King said. The fact is Petraeus said one thing and it was changed and we still don’t know who changed it or gave the order to change it? This White House has no problem with leaking info when it suits their purpose. So you feel it’s ok to lie to “protect” us? There had already been statements on the news before Ms. Rice went on TV on the weekend that included references to terrorism. I believe even officials/leaders in Syria were saying terrorism, which is why it was so absurd when she went on TV and said a stupid video on You Tube caused the attack. Why couldn’t she we are still investigating but early reports suggest terrorism? Why not say we are still investigating and do not want to make any statements yet about the cause until we know more? Why come out and say something that no one thought was the reason? Because they have a storyline they had to protect – that Obama was a great leader who took down Al Qaeda. I even heard him make that stupid statement about Al Qaeda being on the run during a campaign stop, even weeks after it was clear that they were involved and they are not “on the run.” The fact is this Admin and Hillary ( whose husband’s admin was the same) can’t or don’t want to recognize the threat that terrorism is to the USA. They look at the issue as a crime, as though they are fighting the Mafia or a gang. Clinton’s blind-eye to the truth and realities led to 9/11; Obama’s blind-eye and naivete will lead us down the same path.

  5. RD – Do you have any links to share? Enquiring minds want to know.

  6. Brian Opsahl

    RD your entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, The hearing and testimony proved that what Ms Rice said was what she was told by intell at that time…

    Stop being a sore loser…and beleiveing Fox BS

  7. Brian,

    Then it logically follows that you will become a champion for the Bush/Cheney team amongst your liberal brethren right? You know, the whole Bush lied people died crap?

    If not, I suggest an appropriate Christmas sweater for you might have the word HYPOCRITE emblazoned on the front. Red on green would probably be and excellent color scheme.

  8. Poor RD apparently is having trouble coming to grips with Obama’s victory in last week’s election. That condition is common among wingnuts. They’re just beside themselves with grief.

    If my guess is correct, Obama even won in RD’s home state, which some self-deluded fools had thought would go for Romney.

  9. doc: Your comparison of the Susan Rice statements to those of the Bush-Cheney team is foolishly ignorant of history.

    Susan Rice’s misstatements (if that is what they were) came AFTER Americans died at Benghazi. The Bush-Cheney misstatements came BEFORE Americans died in the Iraq War and were used as justification for that war.

    So much for your idiotic argument concerning what “logically follows” from what Brian said.

  10. Brian Opsahl

    RD, are you really trying to say It’s now Bill Clintons fault for 911 even though Condolezza Rice said that 6 months before 911 she put a memo describing Osama dead Ladins plans for flying an airliner into a building and that the terror cells were already in the USA on GW Bushes DESK….6 months prior…here let me say that again !! 6 m o n t h s prior …not me that said it Ms Sec,of State Codolezza Rice said that.
    Again it has been proven by what the General testified to Yesterday that what John Mcain and Lindsey Gram and FOX liars news said for over a week now…it’s over and you all lost.
    Grow up and move on…Please

  11. Brian and others – I don’t care what Susan Rice said. So what if she was saying what she was told? The information she was given was not correct. Someone in the Admin gave her false facts and Petraeus said that what he had written was changed. How difficult is that to understand? The issue is not just what she said; it’s the fact that this Admin was manipulating facts to suit their purpose. And Brian, if you are upset that Bush ignored a memo, then you must be upset that this Admin ignored all of the pleas and requests and memos for help before 9/11. This Admin knew for a while that there were problems and something should have been done. There had been an attack weeks or months before – for God’s sake, why didn’t the Admin do something? Because they had an agenda – just like you believe Bush had an agenda to tell lies. Oh, and finally, as for Clinton – yea, I do place blame on him for the years of apathy and ignoring the problem and allowing Al Qaeda to become as strong as they were. I mean, when you have Osama issuing video of a holy war on uss, shouldn’t you take it seriously? Instead, Jamie Gorelick keeps treating the issue as a law-enforcement issue and setting up walls to communication between agencies because she was more concerned with being able to get a conviction. At one point are you going to blame Obama for things that are happening? Will it take another attack on our soil, or will you still support him and ignore his incompetence and naivete?

  12. Steverino – anything in particular you want proof of? I will be happy to provide it.

  13. RD can’t get it through his thick wingnut skull that, as I explained yesterday, “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.”

    That info comes from the New York Times’ account of Petraeus’ testimony before congressional committees.

    But, of course, RD dismisses anything from the NYT, because that’s what his right-wing sources of misinformation tell him to do.

    There’s no point in debating this matter with such a nitwit.

  14. RD – You do realize that Clinton’s efforts to thwart international terriorism is unprecedented offering more than a billion dollars in 1996 toward US security only to be dismissed by the GOP at that time. Many counterterrorism measures which we now take for granted were proposed under Clinton’s anti-terror legislation. If there’s a blind eye it’s the GOP and the media during his tenure.

  15. Brian Opsahl

    Your right Pat, but I can’t help myself…RD, I know you have a case of whats called Romnesia….how do i know that, well everytime when Bill Clinton went after Osama Dead Ladin…(more than 22 Tomahawk missiles aimed at Osama) he was acused of….do you remember RD ..? …Wag the dog syndrome…every single time. And since Condolezza told Bush and he ignored her 6 months before…yea thats Bushs fault…and none others.

  16. Brian where did you get these facts? You might want to read this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *