Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The CIA asked Congress & WH not to refer to the Benghazi attacks as Terrorism

Benghazi, Not Petraeus Affair, Is Focus at Closed Hearings

WASHINGTON — In closed sessions before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on Friday, David H. Petraeus apologized to lawmakers about his affair with Paula Broadwell, which led to his resignation last week as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, but lawmakers said later that they did not ask about the matter.

Timeline: Petraeus Affair


David H. Petraeus, right, entered his home in Arlington, Va., followed by security agents, after testifying on Capitol Hill on Friday.


Instead, the focus of both hearings was the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, two months ago that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Mr. Petraeus said that classified intelligence showed that the deadly raid on the diplomatic mission was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific affiliates of Al Qaeda to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies prepared unclassified talking points on the attack for members of Congress, and in them the references to Qaeda affiliates were changed to the less specific “extremists” to avoid revealing to insurgents that American intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on their electronic communications.

Republicans have criticized the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, for suggesting that the siege in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest rather than an opportunistic terrorist attack. Ms. Rice used the less specific, unclassified talking points when she appeared on five Sunday talk shows five days after the attack.

“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, told reporters after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”

Democrats leapt to Ms. Rice’s defense after the Senate hearing, saying she was simply following the unclassified talking points provided to her. Ms. Rice did not stray from those talking points, lawmakers said Mr. Petraeus told them.

“I really think Ambassador Rice is being treated unfairly,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee.

Ms. Feinstein declined to offer any assessments on flawed intelligence or security lapses related to the attack, saying that the panel intended to hold two additional closed hearings, then produce a set of unclassified findings that would be presented in a public hearing.

But the panel’s senior Republican, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said the matter with Ms. Rice had not been fully resolved. Mr. Chambliss said federal investigators were getting a clearer picture of what groups or individuals were responsible for the attack. President Obama has repeatedly said the assailants will be brought to justice.

“How did this group penetrate the facility that we had in Benghazi, and who were these folks?” Mr. Chambliss said, speaking to reporters afterward. “We’re getting closer to determining that. We know they were Al Qaeda affiliates or Al Qaeda itself.”

American intelligence officials and Libyans at the scene have said that a local militant group, Ansar al-Shariah, was largely responsible for the attack, and that some of its members probably have ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North African arm.

These officials have disputed the notion that Al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan or its affiliate in North Africa organized or directed the assault on the diplomatic mission and a C.I.A. base about a mile away.


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Nov. 16, 2012 at 7:36 PM
Replies (91-97):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I know Confidential and Secret are two different categories. But last time I checked they were given information on both.

I hope you understand I don't believe congress was in the "video room" there. I was talking about the Information that was disbursed after.

For example. There is also a clearance above Top Secret. People who have the clearance to use SCI give information to people who can use TS who then make reports for people who can read Secret/Confidential who then disperse it to the troops in a way where no clearance is needed at all.

Congress is not always at the very bottom of the totem poll like a normal person. I am not sure how high each of their own clearances allow them to go but I know they are high enough to read confidential information. And unless things have changed they are allowed Secret information. I am not sure if they are allowed Top Secret Information and I am pretty positive they aren't allowed anything higher than that. But they wouldn't need TS/SCI clearances to get a report saying we know who the terrorist are but don't want to say anything that will give that away.

That knowledge is at the Secret/Confidential level. If they don't say we are directely listening to them it is at the Confidential level.

And yeah it's always great to debate with someone who doesn't directly resort to name calling and attacking ones personal character. It's also way more challenging and more information (To whoever reads our post).

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Confidential and Secret are two different categories. You also have higher levels than secret. What went down that night in the video room and probably right afterwards would have had a clearance level higher than S or C.

The repubs did not "have knowledge" and then used it against Obama.  That can be easily proven and we know that Obama would be throwing those people under the bus by name in his Press Conference. 

Hey, I gotta run.....gotta' take care of a sick little one.  I know your opinion has not changed and neither has mine......but I have really enjoyed the back and forth w/out the cursing and name calling.  See ya' in the next "go around.'  ;  )

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Congress doesn't have the clearance to read secret/confidential Information anymore?

It's not like we are talking about the higher echelons of classified information. I agree with your point 1) but that has never stopped them from giving congress Classified Information before.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

See my comment in the other dialogue.  Both demos and repubs would have been kept out of the loop due to 1)  Can't keep their mouth shuts   2) Security clearance levels are not high enough.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Yeah-But it was changed.

Hence the title being correct. 

If everyone stated what you did at the end I would agree with you guys (That we should wait and see what comes out to see a better glimpse of what the truth is).

But most people are not walking that road. Most people are walking the road where they say, "He is guilty!"

I would agree it's important to ask who made that change and why. But it's equally as important to note that the GOP/Congress knew about the changed talking points and still blasted President Obama for his word usage when they knew exactly why he choose the words he did.

I am not saying President Obama made the right choice and the best choice. But what I am saying is the false scandal that the GOP/Republicans were trying to paint earlier was bs because they knew exactly why he said what he did. But saying the truth didn't paint him in a picture that looks as bad as ignoring the truth.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Baloney.  The spooks didn't ask for this as your title suggested.  Look in your NYT's article on page one.  The spooks and Petraeus signed off on the "terrorist" being listed in the original doc.  That is why King wants to know who and why someone took it out.    The NYT are on Obama's payroll (figuritively speaking).....I'll have to wait and see what comes out internationally to see the truth.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html


Quoting pvtjokerus:

Site the source to this posting, please.


Quote:


CIA officials, including former Director David Petraeus, told Congress last week they had determined quickly that al-Qaida was involved but wanted to keep that information classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/sen-feinstein-administration-told-to-find-out-who-changed-benghazi-talking-points/2012/11/18/3bf7a81a-3195-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story.html

General Petraeus is the source. Fox News doesn't seem want to shed light on this portion of the news but using Fox News as a source you can still find hints of the truth.

Quote:


Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the discrepancy can be attributed to the classified talking points that some saw versus the unclassified version that othrs, like U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, used."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/petraeus-to-testify-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-start-source-says/


The classified talking points that Congress/WhiteHouse saw specified it as Terrorism and who they group was affiliated with. The unclassified talking points lacked that because it held sensitive information.







Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Nov. 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

 . Did you expect anything else from the American hating GOP - I think anyone who participated in this should be tried for treason frankly.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Quote:

The CIA asked Congress & the White House not to refer to the Benghazi attacks as terrorism "to avoid revealing to insurgents that American intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on their electronic communications." Republicans in congress knew this, even as they attacked Obama for it.

Wow..... Just wow. That's horrible.

 

AdellesMom
by on Nov. 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM
No, he isn't incompetent. You really should learn how our government works. He doesn't have "power" because he's the "Commander in Chief." There are people that he has to listen to...like the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. Hell, Congress has more "power" than the President.

But, your calling him "incompetent" proved my point for me...thanks for that.


Quoting cammibear:

Either way he is incompetent. Who is higher than the Commander in Chief? lol






Quoting AdellesMom:

There's no proof that they were watching it in real time. Even if they were, and someone higher in the tanks told them not to do anything, there would've been NOTHING that they could've done. You're just looking for something else to bitch at Obama for. That's not going to work.





Quoting cammibear:

If they were watching this in real time, there is NO justification for them not making sure everything in their power was done to keep those men alive. They did nothing. Anything they say or do now is just them trying to cover their butts.
















Quoting brookiecookie87:

What if troops were ready to mobilize, fast action special forces were ready to go, and the CIA told them it wasn't needed?

Or are you just admiting that no matter what happens you are going to blame President Obama/his adminstration?

And there is a HUGE difference between "everyone knowing" and the actual Terrorist knowing we were listening in on them.





Quoting cammibear:

Oh please. Everybody knew it was a terrorist attack on 9/11. No excuse they can give now justifies them doing nothing to help save those 4 American lives.














Quoting brookiecookie87:







Quote:

The CIA asked Congress & the White House not to refer to the Benghazi attacks as terrorism "to avoid revealing to insurgents that American intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on their electronic communications." Republicans in congress knew this, even as they attacked Obama for it.






Wow..... Just wow. That's horrible.








Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
happy2bmom25
by on Nov. 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM

obama referred to this as an act of terror . he and his administration also referred to this as a riot that stemmed from the you tube video. to say that obama can say act of terror, and to say that no one eles can say terrorism is ridiculous. obama and his administration blaming the you tube video for weeks was insulting. to say that you will not back rice is not attacking her as a woman, it is attacking her integrity, and it should be attacked. if you are willing to speak out and blame a video for an act of terror, then you must also be willing to accept that you will not be accepted for your cheapness. by the time rice came out, libya had already declared this an act of terror, or terrorist act.

obama may say don't attack her, attack me, but you know what, we have condemned him, and his administration for talking to the world as if we are stupid.

how are we tipping off our enemies if we respond to cries for help and back up? by responding to our people in need, does that somehow indicate to a terrorist that we are also listening in on them? really, that is absurd. i do not know why we did not help when help was requested. maybe will find out and maybe we will continuously be distracted with things like videos and semantics.



brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM

You seem to be glossing over the point of the article

And going everywehre besides where the Article is trying to make the point.

There is a HUGE diffeerence between an Act of Terror and Terrorism. Terrorism is included in Acts of Terror but Acts of Terror is not limited to Terrorism. Do you see how that works?

Anyone doing anything devastating can be included in an Act of Terror. But that is not so for Terrorism. Especially when it comes to pointing out exactly who did it.

I don't know -anyone- who blamed the video for the violence there. That's a Republican talking point you might have gotten from only watching conservative news programs.

Now President Obama did condemn the video and plenty of people said it was in extremely bad taste and is a stupid video. But those are not the same as saying, "This happened because of that video".

And let me guess-You don't see anything wrong with the GOP/Republicans knowing exactly why President Obama used the words he did but then still turned to the general public and pretended President Obama is the worst person ever for using those words?

You bring up that we were listening to them which seems to imply you read the article. But then you say how does backing them up give that information away which seems to imply did not not read the article.

The point of changing the talking points to not give away we are listening to them is in regards to the words President Obama spoke and the stance they took. That is NOT in regards to their actions.


Quoting happy2bmom25:

obama referred to this as an act of terror . he and his administration also referred to this as a riot that stemmed from the you tube video. to say that obama can say act of terror, and to say that no one eles can say terrorism is ridiculous. obama and his administration blaming the you tube video for weeks was insulting. to say that you will not back rice is not attacking her as a woman, it is attacking her integrity, and it should be attacked. if you are willing to speak out and blame a video for an act of terror, then you must also be willing to accept that you will not be accepted for your cheapness. by the time rice came out, libya had already declared this an act of terror, or terrorist act.

obama may say don't attack her, attack me, but you know what, we have condemned him, and his administration for talking to the world as if we are stupid.

how are we tipping off our enemies if we respond to cries for help and back up? by responding to our people in need, does that somehow indicate to a terrorist that we are also listening in on them? really, that is absurd. i do not know why we did not help when help was requested. maybe will find out and maybe we will continuously be distracted with things like videos and semantics.




Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

happy2bmom25
by on Nov. 19, 2012 at 12:50 PM

what is your take on the point of the article? 

my point is rice should be responsible for what she says, especially when looking at a promotion to a position like the secretary of state. weather it was scripted or not.  weather the talking points were original or altered.

this is what Clinton said on sept. 11

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

this is what Clinton said on sept 12

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.


on sept 16 rice said

Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and –

They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

during the same interview the president of Libya said

Schieffer: Was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know? Or what– what do you know about that?

Magariaf: The way these perpetrators acted and moved … this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined– predetermined.

Schieffer: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that — is that what you are telling us?

Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival. …

I see the difference between terrorist act and act of terror, but i still believe the world deserves better than you tube video.

what is the point of the article to you? is it that rice was treated unfairly by republicans that will not endorse her as secretary of state? is it that talking points were changed? 

I never heard anyone say that obama is the worst person ever.

when i mentioned that responding to requests for back up would not tip off any extremist group, that is what i meant. just because the U.S is listening in on terrorist communications has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not they can communicate with their own embassies throughout the world.

when the president of Libya states that this was a planned terrorist attack, does that imply that he was listening in on terrorist communications? or does it mean that with a little thought and investigation, the truth is revealed, and there is no reason to try to fool the world?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You seem to be glossing over the point of the article

And going everywehre besides where the Article is trying to make the point.

There is a HUGE diffeerence between an Act of Terror and Terrorism. Terrorism is included in Acts of Terror but Acts of Terror is not limited to Terrorism. Do you see how that works?

Anyone doing anything devastating can be included in an Act of Terror. But that is not so for Terrorism. Especially when it comes to pointing out exactly who did it.

I don't know -anyone- who blamed the video for the violence there. That's a Republican talking point you might have gotten from only watching conservative news programs.

Now President Obama did condemn the video and plenty of people said it was in extremely bad taste and is a stupid video. But those are not the same as saying, "This happened because of that video".

And let me guess-You don't see anything wrong with the GOP/Republicans knowing exactly why President Obama used the words he did but then still turned to the general public and pretended President Obama is the worst person ever for using those words?

You bring up that we were listening to them which seems to imply you read the article. But then you say how does backing them up give that information away which seems to imply did not not read the article.

The point of changing the talking points to not give away we are listening to them is in regards to the words President Obama spoke and the stance they took. That is NOT in regards to their actions.


Quoting happy2bmom25:

obama referred to this as an act of terror . he and his administration also referred to this as a riot that stemmed from the you tube video. to say that obama can say act of terror, and to say that no one eles can say terrorism is ridiculous. obama and his administration blaming the you tube video for weeks was insulting. to say that you will not back rice is not attacking her as a woman, it is attacking her integrity, and it should be attacked. if you are willing to speak out and blame a video for an act of terror, then you must also be willing to accept that you will not be accepted for your cheapness. by the time rice came out, libya had already declared this an act of terror, or terrorist act.

obama may say don't attack her, attack me, but you know what, we have condemned him, and his administration for talking to the world as if we are stupid.

how are we tipping off our enemies if we respond to cries for help and back up? by responding to our people in need, does that somehow indicate to a terrorist that we are also listening in on them? really, that is absurd. i do not know why we did not help when help was requested. maybe will find out and maybe we will continuously be distracted with things like videos and semantics.





brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 19, 2012 at 1:01 PM

You do realize even with the quote you are using Rice didn't blame the terrorist acts on the video. There was a protest there and that protest was there because of the video.

But saying that protest was there because of the video is not the same as saying the terrorist attack was because of the video. The people responsible for the attack would have attacked at some point video or no video.

What the leaders of other countries do is not the same as what we do. If the CIA makes a request that we don't call it Terrorism/Don't Specify who did the attack it makes sense to listen to them.

Quoting happy2bmom25:

what is your take on the point of the article? 

my point is rice should be responsible for what she says, especially when looking at a promotion to a position like the secretary of state. weather it was scripted or not.  weather the talking points were original or altered.

this is what Clinton said on sept. 11

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

this is what Clinton said on sept 12

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.


on sept 16 rice said


Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and –

They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

during the same interview the president of Libya said


Schieffer: Was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know? Or what– what do you know about that?

Magariaf: The way these perpetrators acted and moved … this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined– predetermined.

Schieffer: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that — is that what you are telling us?

Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival. …

I see the difference between terrorist act and act of terror, but i still believe the world deserves better than you tube video.

what is the point of the article to you? is it that rice was treated unfairly by republicans that will not endorse her as secretary of state? is it that talking points were changed? 

I never heard anyone say that obama is the worst person ever.

when i mentioned that responding to requests for back up would not tip off any extremist group, that is what i meant. just because the U.S is listening in on terrorist communications has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not they can communicate with their own embassies throughout the world.

when the president of Libya states that this was a planned terrorist attack, does that imply that he was listening in on terrorist communications? or does it mean that with a little thought and investigation, the truth is revealed, and there is no reason to try to fool the world?


Quoting brookiecookie87:

You seem to be glossing over the point of the article

And going everywehre besides where the Article is trying to make the point.

There is a HUGE diffeerence between an Act of Terror and Terrorism. Terrorism is included in Acts of Terror but Acts of Terror is not limited to Terrorism. Do you see how that works?

Anyone doing anything devastating can be included in an Act of Terror. But that is not so for Terrorism. Especially when it comes to pointing out exactly who did it.

I don't know -anyone- who blamed the video for the violence there. That's a Republican talking point you might have gotten from only watching conservative news programs.

Now President Obama did condemn the video and plenty of people said it was in extremely bad taste and is a stupid video. But those are not the same as saying, "This happened because of that video".

And let me guess-You don't see anything wrong with the GOP/Republicans knowing exactly why President Obama used the words he did but then still turned to the general public and pretended President Obama is the worst person ever for using those words?

You bring up that we were listening to them which seems to imply you read the article. But then you say how does backing them up give that information away which seems to imply did not not read the article.

The point of changing the talking points to not give away we are listening to them is in regards to the words President Obama spoke and the stance they took. That is NOT in regards to their actions.


Quoting happy2bmom25:

obama referred to this as an act of terror . he and his administration also referred to this as a riot that stemmed from the you tube video. to say that obama can say act of terror, and to say that no one eles can say terrorism is ridiculous. obama and his administration blaming the you tube video for weeks was insulting. to say that you will not back rice is not attacking her as a woman, it is attacking her integrity, and it should be attacked. if you are willing to speak out and blame a video for an act of terror, then you must also be willing to accept that you will not be accepted for your cheapness. by the time rice came out, libya had already declared this an act of terror, or terrorist act.

obama may say don't attack her, attack me, but you know what, we have condemned him, and his administration for talking to the world as if we are stupid.

how are we tipping off our enemies if we respond to cries for help and back up? by responding to our people in need, does that somehow indicate to a terrorist that we are also listening in on them? really, that is absurd. i do not know why we did not help when help was requested. maybe will find out and maybe we will continuously be distracted with things like videos and semantics.






Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)