Posted byMessage
jonboy
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
2705 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

baybeefeetz



quote:

do you think people care whether al qaeda was deleted from the CIA talking points?


Considering Rice(probably just repeating what she was told), Hillary, Biden in the Ryan debate & the President all said the video assumption was from the "intelligence community"....yes, people will care. To add - the al-quada narrative was critical to the campaign's war on terror claims. Admitting an al-quada linked attack would be politically devastating during the campaign.

FWIW, the Watergate break-in was 3rd page news when first reported.






Back to top
PaddlingTiger
LSU Fan
St. Louis, MO
Member since Jun 2010
1059 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


To be clear, what Petraeus said was that the talking points went through inter-office review to remove statements that could not be made because they might reveal classified information. He was clear that this was not a political process.





Back to top
Catman88
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Dec 2004
38798 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


What is classified about it being a known terrorist attack or not that involves al Qaeda?





Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts
 Online 

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


According to Peter King, after asked why the talking points were different, Petraeus said it "goes through a process, an interagency process and that when it came back it had been taken out (specific AQ reference)", that Petraeus did not realize the significance of it at the time and that "for an unclassified statement this was acceptable."

King also seemed to infer that Petraeus gave a different impression with his prior testimony.

1:49



This post was edited on 11/16 at 10:44 am


Back to top
FenrirTheBeard
New Orleans Saints Fan
NOLA
Member since Jun 2012
2741 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


It doesn't matter what was said or not said, done or undone. Nothing will come of this. Those families of the 4 Americans who were killed will never know why they died and not protected. Justice will not be done.





Back to top
buddhavista
Member since Jul 2012
3543 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

It's joke that some think this isn't as big as Wategate.


why is it as big as watergate?

I don't think we have enough to know what is going on, to compare it to watergate.

If the CIA was clueless about this stuff, then its not watergate level
if the administration played down the terrorist angle, its not watergate level
if stevens was at the compound to illegally transfer guns to the opposition in syria, its as big as watergate. Although the iran contra affair, which was arguably the same thing wasn't as big as watergate.






Back to top
Catman88
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Dec 2004
38798 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


This doesnt explain why they talking points were wrong. The people that received the memo and made statements about it coming from a spontaneous demonstration would all have clearance to the classified talking points.







Back to top
PaddlingTiger
LSU Fan
St. Louis, MO
Member since Jun 2010
1059 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


None of us know exactly what Petraeus said, but here is a quote from someone who does know what he said:

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

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea."

It sounds like it goes beyond an inquiry as to whether info is classified and into whether disclosing the info at that time might jeopardize sources and ongoing intelligence ops.






Back to top
Catman88
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Dec 2004
38798 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


Its potentially as big and bigger. Thats why there is a need for the hearings. There was no death of a us ambassador in watergate and iran contra.





Back to top
Catman88
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Dec 2004
38798 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

So changes were made to protect classified information.


If the changes made were to remove text that it was a terror attack and and who did it to "protect classified info" then this is complete horse shite and was DEFINITLY political.

I have seen the process of handling classified information made for public release first hand. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can say this wasnt a politically motivated omission. Being "adamant" that is isnt doesnt debunk shite.






Back to top
buddhavista
Member since Jul 2012
3543 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

Thats why there is a need for the hearings.

I like the hearings idea, assuming it doesn't turn into the clinton witchhunt in the 90s. The only thing that did was good was to boost right wing talk radio ratings.

quote:

There was no death of a us ambassador in watergate and iran contra.

Sure, but in iran contra people definitely died. And we did give aid to the enemy there. And lied to congress.

I might be in the minority but 4 dead doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Compared to the numbers who have died in the WoT, its small potatoes. The deaths were likely preventable, but so were 90%+ of the deaths in the WoT.








Back to top
Ace Midnight
LSU Fan
Ball, LA - Home, Sweet Home
Member since Dec 2006
26232 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

If the CIA was clueless about this stuff, then its not watergate level
if the administration played down the terrorist angle, its not watergate level


I like you man, but you're borderline hackish on this. They did this specifically to protect the election campaign. They lied, lied about lying, lied about lying about lying, arrested a guy - lied about that, then said, "Hey, no harm, no foul. We ALWAYS knew it was Al-Queda (and this film that was insulting to Islam)."






Back to top
jonboy
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
2705 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:


King also seemed to infer that Petraeus gave a different impression with his prior testimony.


He sure did. Every time someone involved with this thing speaks it gets more bizarre. I'm going to link your video on the front page.






Back to top
buddhavista
Member since Jul 2012
3543 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

They did this specifically to protect the election campaign. They lied, lied about lying, lied about lying about lying, arrested a guy - lied about that, then said, "Hey, no harm, no foul. We ALWAYS knew it was Al-Queda (and this film that was insulting to Islam)."

sure, and its despicable. But its too be expected during a campaign. All the candidates lie, and cover things up.

Watergate was much much much bigger than just lying about it. They broke the law, then they did a lot of really nasty illegal shite to cover it. Destroyed evidence, etc.

It could be like watergate in that the cover up gets you in the end.

What interests me is why they would lie about it? I would think the getting attacked by terrorist angle would play to a sitting president's strong suit.






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts
 Online 

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

I'm going to link your video on the front page.


Since you'll be editing anyway, you might as well change the thread title to "Petraeus - CIA talking points altered by interagency process" - if you want to be accurate






Back to top
moneyg
LSU Fan
Member since Jun 2006
17910 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

if the administration played down the terrorist angle, its not watergate level



I disagree if it is later confirmed that the administration did not follow the set protocol of responding to a terrorist attack on the night of the attack....and has since engaged is a clear cover up.

That this was during the height of the election is also a major factor.






Back to top
buddhavista
Member since Jul 2012
3543 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

I disagree if it is later confirmed that the administration did not follow the set protocol of responding to a terrorist attack on the night of the attack

This isn't watergate level. This is a violation of SOP. While problematic, its not illegal.
quote:

and has since engaged is a clear cover up.

sure, but have they broken any laws in the cover up? If they did, yes, it might get to watergate level. But if all they did was lie to the american people, not watergate IMHO.






Back to top
Ace Midnight
LSU Fan
Ball, LA - Home, Sweet Home
Member since Dec 2006
26232 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

I would think the getting attacked by terrorist angle would play to a sitting president's strong suit.


I think it plays into his long game. He benefits in the ME by attacking the guy who made the film (and I do believe the protests in Cairo were about the stupid film). However, Libya presented a sticky situation - that was definitely his baby - he owns Libya lock, stock and barrel. Also, if they had admitted, at the time, it was an Al-Queda attack, he would have been pressured more to respond (rather than try to "calm people down" over the stupid film, which of course had nothing to do with Benghazi) - and he would have lost more of his base for being reactionary than any votes he would have picked up on the right.

Worse than the cover-up though, is, just like Clinton in Somalia, the lack of response to desparate requests on the ground for more support prior to the attack. This combined with 1 of 2 possible reactions to the attack: 1. Nobody sent any help (other than Libyan authorities); or 2. The help that was sent was ordered to "stand down".

Either of those are worse than Watergate, IMHO.





This post was edited on 11/16 at 11:13 am


Back to top
EthanL
LSU Fan
Harvey LA
Member since Oct 2011
2845 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


The title of this thread is severely misleading given the content





Back to top
moneyg
LSU Fan
Member since Jun 2006
17910 posts

re: Petraeus - CIA Talking points altered by administration


quote:

What interests me is why they would lie about it? I would think the getting attacked by terrorist angle would play to a sitting president's strong suit.



See LINK


quote:

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG). "The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."






Back to top



Back to top