Petraeus: Other Federal Agencies Removed CIA References To Benghazi As Terror Attack


The Associated Press has an early report about General David Petraeus’ testimony before Congress today. They’re reporting that Petraeus believed the Benghazi attack was an act of terror from the get-go, and that CIA reports reflected that feeling but were changed later by “other federal agencies.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressman says David Petraeus (peh-TRAY’-uhs) is telling lawmakers he believed all along that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack. …

Lawmakers say Petraeus told them that CIA talking points written after the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus says that reference was removed by other federal agencies that made changes to the CIA’s draft.

Gee, I wonder who those “other federal agencies” were?

Update: Petraeus also said that he knew immediately the attack was an act of terror, and that when Obama administration spokeswoman Susan Rice was speaking to the media, her talking points weren’t coming from the intelligence community:

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports. …

“When he looks at what Susan Rice said,” CNN reports, “here is what Petraeus’s take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.”

Here’s the video from CNN:

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Tim Heise

    Why do “other federal agencies” have the ability to change the CIAs draft?

    • JW -American

      Because He- “The One” Leader of those other agencies, walks on water, heals the sick and can part the seas with just a wave of his mighty hand. He shall not be challenged, questioned or otherwise bothered by such an inmate question.

      For “He” has neutered the spineless wimps at the Networks, and has the Republican party painted to look like a bunch of racist, sexist homophobe’s that should just cower in the corner at the sight of his Almighty shadow.

      Other then that, they can’t alter a report..

      • JW -American

        should read innate question, I wish you could edit posts..

    • Rob

      Because the President is Commander-In-Chief.

  • fedupny

    It must be the [Oval] Office 2012 spell checker. Type in “terrorist” and it changes to “protest”.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      The SAB spell checkers need to stop confusing “protest” and “motivation”.

      The dingers can’t tell the difference between them, revealing that even though a terrorists attack, the motivation was reported to be the video.

      So the dumb dingers go about making a big hullabaloo about misreporting between who attacked and the motivation.

      • fedupny

        It wasn’t motivation, it was the cover story.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Of course it was the motivation. Eye witnesses confirm.

          • fedupny

            Got a link?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Of course I do, but my question is why aren’t you aware of this?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were
            they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was
            the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?

            According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway
            of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.

            They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials
            believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours
            before it took place.


          • guest

            What a reliable source, the NYTimes. obama lies, and like you, they swear to it.

          • fedupny

            This says they were disproved…

            “Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

            There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

            The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus’ initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia’s possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.”


          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, that says that the idea “protestors angry about the film and then attacked” were disproved. It does not say that the terrorist organization was not motivated by the film.

          • fedupny

            Pretzel logic. I wish that I could read between the lines as well as you, and infer all the things it doesn’t say to bring it back to what it does state. Nice try though.

          • Troy

            The only eye witness’s to the attack were the attackers and the victims, and everyone watching through the drone who did nothing to help the murdered victims..

            obama is an accomplice to murder.

      • guest

        “who attacked and the motivation.”

        Al Quada and their hate for Americans.There was no protest and it was planned.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          No, it was another group sympathetic to AQ, but more fundamentalist about their prophet than anything else.

          It will all be sorted out soon, and you dumb dingers will have to let loose of this conspiracy theories when you see the confusion was the cause of the messages from the white house, while you try to provide cover for your film maker.

          • Onslaught1066

            So in your tiny fruitcake mind AQ is moderate terrorists and these 9-11 attackers are radicals, I guess the same way democrats are radical communists, just another group sympathetic ( you got that right dems are simps and pathetic) to soviet style communism but more fundamentalist about their prophet than anything else.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Brahaha! You are a nutcase through and through.

          • guest

            Speaking of a nut cake, actually a fruit.

          • jl

            Right. And they just happened to get pissed of about some movie on 9-11 (12). I know i’ve asked you this before- but do your parents have any surviving children?

  • Harold

    Sure hope the general tells the truth and doesn’t lie. He’s a great man in my view led his troops heroically and with only the thought of bringing them all back home alive. HOwever, he did something extremely ignorant and now must pay the price for that ignorance. We can only hope he’s a good american and inspite of all his self inflicted wounds needs to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      In other words, if he tells the truth you don’t want to believe he is lying? Is that it?

  • $8194357
  • WOOF

    Horn dog Pertaeus linked to reportedly gay Ambassador Stevens.
    Terrorism or was the CIA used to murder a General Officer’s lover ?

    • guest

      Once again, and so easily you prove what a dope you are.

      • WOOF

        Again, easily, you prove you are dope.

  • Neiman

    In the end, it is all sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Obama has learned how to defeat the GOP on such issues, not befuddling them with his brilliance, but baffling them with his lying bullshit. The GOP, incapable of learning, unwilling to suffer correction, do not have the intellectual necessities and political skills to lay any blame for any fault at Lord Obama’s feet as far as the people are concerned.

    Obama already made this about race and gender, about the GOP attacking poor Ambassador Rice and the GOP loses the debate. Why? The GOP is incapable of anticipating such attacks and being proactive, they are incapable of working with media/communications experts that possess modern internet/computer skills and the ability to speak to the average voter, It is better they shut up and stop embarrassing themselves and the rank and file GOP.

  • sbark

    So that leaves one conclusion………..Obama Flat out lied in hopes of keeping his Dead Osama/ Dead Al Queda b.s going thru the election…….
    Is there anything Obama has not lied about?…………oh ya the Joe the Plumber statement, and the more flexibilty after the elections to the Commie Russians

  • Harold

    I like liars I think there needed in every white house and govt agency, we as americans just don’t need the truth, we need more liars. Looks like I get my wish for more liars in WAshington. Thank God for that.

  • $8194357

    American Palleywood..

    Waggin the dog taqiyya style..

    Say doesn’t Axelrod have a relitive “reporting” (hmm..hmm)
    for CBS?

  • azulu

    Looks like you conservatives had it wrong all along, as usual. Petraeus said the White House was asked not to say it was an act of terror to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

    See that? It was your insane conspiracy theory going up in smoke.