by
John Nolte
16 Nov 2012
Republican Congressman Peter King just exited the closed-door hearing with David Petraeus to update the media, and his description of the ex-CIA Chief's testimony contained more than one bombshell.
Republican Congressman Peter King just exited the closed-door hearing with David Petraeus to update the media, and his description of the ex-CIA Chief's testimony contained more than one bombshell.
For starters, King said Petraeus told
them that the CIA talking points meant for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's
Sept. 16 round robin of five Sunday network news shows, originally
contained the information that there was evidence al-Qaeda elements were
involved in the attack. These talking points were then altered through
"an inter-agency process."
"The original talking points were much
more specific about al-Qaeda involvement and yet the finals ones just
said' indications of extremists.' It said 'indicate' even though there
was clearly evidence at the CIA that there was al-Qaeda involvement."
When asked by a reporter if Petraeus
knew "why" the talking points were change, King responded with, "They
just said it goes through a process, an inter-agency process and when
they come back that had been taken out."
Obviously, what we now know is that in
their final format, the talking points in question focused exclusively
on the false idea that the September 11 anniversary attack was motivated
by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.
King also said that the testimony from
Petraeus today was much different than his original testimony on Sept.
14. Today, Petraeus told the committee that he knew "almost immediately"
that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called
Ansar al Sharia and that the "overwhelming amount of evidence said this
was a terror attack." According to numerous reports, in his original
testimony, Petraeus focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as
the prime motivator for the attack.
So, at least according to Rep. King, we
have Petraeus amending and/or contradicting his original testimony, and
the news that somewhere in-between the CIA and Susan Rice, removed from
the CIA talking points that insisted there was "no evidence" of a
premeditated terrorist attack was the information about Ansar al Sharia.
This leaves us with two new and very important questions that must be answered:
If he did, why did Petraeus change his testimony?
Who changed the CIA talking points,
removing the evidence an al-Qaeda element was likely involved in the
murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans?
