Behind Benghazigate: Intelligence Talking Points Given to Susan Rice Were Altered

General David Petraeus

Reactions by Reps. King and Ruppersberger of closed hearing of November 16, 2012, interview of Director Petraeus:

  • No one knows who is responsible for the final talking points given to Susan Rice which were different from the original reports compiled by intelligence.
  • Gen. Petraeus said he thought all along that it was heavy terrorist involvement within 24 hours. It took the White House 8 days to say it was terrorism and they used the video as a reason for at least two weeks.
  • Democrats are saying that the information was fluid in way of excusing these differences.
  • General Petraeus said there was no other reason for his resignation. He was not pressured to tell a different story.
  • The DOJ not telling the White House about the investigation of General Petraeus is not believable.
  • Rep. King believes that General Petraeus’ testimony today was different from his testimony on the 14th.

Reactions from closed hearings of November 15, 2012:

  • The video fro inside the compound shows the attack and the roadblock. No one could say if they were watching the feed from the drone live. It was not returned until several weeks after the attack. The video from the drone was the only available live feed that we know of for certain.
  • There was audio but no one could give information on that. [Charlene Lamb testified she had constant audio contact at a prior hearing}
  • The leaders met with the president one hour and 18 minutes into the attack but they had no answers as to what the president of Panetta were doing.
  • The original talking points from intelligence were watered-down and references to al-Qaida were removed.
  • They didn’t know who briefed Susan Rice.
  • They didn’t know who changed the talking points.
  • Someone in the White House had to change the talking points.
  • They didn’t know what the president was doing.
  • The reports showed the attacks were al-Qaida attacks.
  • There was no demonstration.
  • Preponderance of evidence from the start showed it was clearly a heavily-involved terror attack.
  • It was clear from original intelligence reporting that it was a terror attack, it was watered-down and then it was brought back to being a terror attack.