START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

WH Edited CIA Report to Hide Al-Qaida Role in Benghazi


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, terrorism, u.s., usa, cover-up )

Cam
- 711 days ago - dailycaller.com
President Barack Obama's deputies modified an intelligence report provided by former CIA Director David Petraeus to obscure the jihadis' role in the Benghazi consulate attack on Sept. 11, 2012, according to House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Cam V. (417)
Friday November 16, 2012, 10:08 pm
President Barack Obama’s deputies modified an intelligence report provided by former CIA Director David Petraeus to obscure the jihadis’ role in the Benghazi consulate attack on Sept. 11, 2012, according to House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King.

The critical question is “who changed these talking points and why,” King said on Nov. 16, shortly after attending a closed-door hearing where Petraeus explained his actions in the days after the surprise attack on the consulate and CIA building in Libya.

The attack, which was launched just two months before the presidential election, killed four Americans, including Obama’s ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

It also forcefully highlighted major problems in Obama’s Muslim-outreach strategy.

Petraeus’ initial report included a specific mention of an al-Qaida role in the attacks, but that mention was removed when the CIA’s report was edited by officials at the Department of Justice, the Department State, the White House’s National Security Council, and various agency public-affairs offices, King said.

Petraeus’ initial CIA report “specifically mentioned al-Qieda, and that al-Qaida was involved in the attack,” King told Fox.

“Somewhere along that line, that was taken out… someone in the administration had to have taken it out,” he said, adding that Congress needs to create a special committee to find out what happened.

That “really changed the whole tone” of the CIA report, he said.

The jihad attack followed months of tension, and periodic attacks, against British and U.S. targets in Benghazi by jihadi groups.

The climatic Sept. 11, 2012 assaults were a success for the jihadis, because U.S. officials pulled out of the city, leaving the jihadis with more ability to pressure the weak Libyan government in the country’s capital city.

In the days after the attack, Obama’s deputies downplayed evidence of a deliberate jihadi attack, and instead blamed the attack on a “natural” popular protest against a California-made video that is critical of Islam’s prophet, Mohammad.

On Sept. 16, for example, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk-shows to argue that the attacks were entangled in a protests against the anti-Islam video.

Obama even spoke out against the video during his Sept. 25 speech at the United Nations General Assembly. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the U.S. president declared, echoing Islamists’ calls for worldwide laws against blasphemy of Islam.

In November, a California judge sentenced the video-maker to a year in jail for various probation violations.

In the weeks prior to the election, the administration’s focus on the video helped the established media ignore the growing problems with his Arab-region outreach policy, despite expanding GOP criticism.

Under his outreach policy, begun in 2009, Obama has helped Islamist groups gain power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

The intention was to create a non-violent political alternative to al-Qaida and other jihadi groups.

But the Islamist political parties share many of the same ideological goals as the jihadi groups, and they frequently cooperate on various issues.

For example, Gaza’s Hamas terror group is an affiliate of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, whose members now control the country’s elected parliament. On Nov. 16, leader of both groups met in Gaza to denounce Israel’s effort to defend itself from Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Similarly, the brother of al-Qaida’s current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a prominent Islamist leader in Cairo, and he helped organize the demonstration outside the U.S. embassy in Egypt on Sept. 11, 2012.

Despite the administration’s effort to focus on the video, the jihadi issue spilled into the U.S. election.

In the second presidential debate, for example, Obama denied any attempt to downplay the jihadis’ role in the Benghazi attack. Republican nominee Mitt Romney quickly sought to debunk that denial, but was successfully derailed by the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley.

To shield the president, Democratic officials are trying to blame the CIA for misleading top officials, and are using Rice to help.

For GOP leaders “to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous,” Obama declared at a Nov. 14 press conference in the White House.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/peter-king-wh-edited-cia-report-to-hide-al-qaida-role-in-benghazi/#ixzz2CSQQINZv

 

Jae A. (323)
Friday November 16, 2012, 10:50 pm
KInd of all ties back to Herbert W BUsh and Dick Cheney/Dubya Bush and their oil/oil related interest in the middle east doesn't it. I mean, Herbert the ex head of the CIA....Al-Qaida being anti-American Corporate etc. Hell they wouldn't have bother with 9/11 had another Bush not been appointed to be our President.Now there's a real story me thimketh.
 

Cam V. (417)
Friday November 16, 2012, 11:26 pm
Bush is gone ..... All Obama now .... and four men died with his administration lying about it? Obama himself lying about it? The only thing he got right is that Bin Laden was dead courtesy of your seals. But as for Al Quieda going with him as Obama liked to boast during the campaing that was an out right lie and he kept promoting it.

 

RR Sutton (7)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 9:31 pm
Yeah, right. Like Obama is director of the CIA as well as being president. Something I don't like doing, but Bu$h got bad intel from the CIA too, but the difference is that he started a war even after he learned if was bad information. Obama gives us the information as he gets it.
 

Cam V. (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 10:13 pm
You walked smack into this one RR .....

IT WAS WRONG WHEN FALSE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN OUT WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE AND I REMEMBER THE HOWLING FROM THE LEFT BECAUSE OF THAT. Not one person ever said it was the right thing to do.

Now, you have senators and congressment on the DEMOCRATIC side trying to say if Bush did it it is all right if Obama did it? CRAP! IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT BEING DONE TO YOU THE FIRST TIME THEN WHY THE HAIL WOULD YOU AS A CITIZEN LIKE IT ANY BETTER WHEN THEY DO IT TO YOU AGAIN???

A government that LIES to its people is hiding something. Fear that government be damned! DEMAND THE TRUTH!
 

Angelica C. (84)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:21 am
Now that Petraeus has testified, even McCain had to admit, before the cameras, that Petraeus's testimony was cogent and believable. Oh well, time for you all to find a new scandal. Hear about the Delphi thing in the Ga legislature? You could always run with that.
 

John Gregoire (258)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 5:58 am
Turn about is fair play in this case folks. the fact is that the CIA had an accurate report and politicians chose to change it and then some flunbky ended up with bad talking points. Who's the blame? The buck stops with the guy who is supposed to be the leader, the CINC, the one responsible and that's Obama.
 

Angelica C. (84)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:13 pm
Here are some actual facts if you ever decide you want them, Cam:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/benghazi-scandalmongering-takes-hit-today
 

Cam V. (417)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:17 pm
The CIA AND the FBI called it a terrorist attack from the get go. Someone changed it and as it has yet to be determined WHO that person was there are no points you can give to prove who that was. They will get to the bottom of this whole thing and the truth will be told in the end. As it should be .....
 

Robert K. (31)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 4:45 pm
Here's a clue for you Cam, nothing on Fox (make believe) News, the Daily Caller or NewsMax among way too many super nut sites is true. Quoting them proves you an unmitigated liar. Just go away. We believe in facts here, clearly you don't. There are thousands of sites where lying is revered, sound just right for your attendance.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Cam V.

Cam V.
Cam's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 0
Stories submitted: 1321
Front Page stories: 226




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.