Categories

In a shocking statement after the House hearing, Rep. Peter King confirmed that Gen. Petraeus testified that the CIA’s original talk points were edited:

Here’s a partial transcript of Rep. King’s statement:

REP. KING: How did the final talking points emerge? He said it went through a long process involving many agencies, including the Department of Justice and the State Department. No one knows yet who came up with the final version of talking points other than to say that the talking points that the CIA had put together were different than the talking points that finally emerged.

Later, Rep. King said “The original talking points were much more specific about al-Qa’ida involvement.”

That’s explosive testimony. Gen. Petraeus essentially said that the CIA, the people that gather the intelligence, originally identified al-Qa’ida as being involved in the attack. Equally explosive is the fact that the original CIA talking points were changed by people outside the intelligence community.

That means what’s been known up till now as “the CIA’s talking points” weren’t put together by the CIA. It includes the possibility that the talking points that Susan Rice referenced were political in nature.

The minute Rice’s talking points don’t have the heft and credibility of being from the CIA is the minute these talking points lose their credibility. It’s also the minute Ambassador Rice’s story loses credibility.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Rep. King: Petraeus testifies talking points were edited”

  • eric z says:

    Where did this phrase “talking points” originate?

    What is the history of its use, this context, this situation?

    The post presumes knowledge or agreement on some base premises/definitions, and w/o being privy to what was assumed there, it does not hang together making sense w/o the background.

    Petreas was called to tell the truth, wasn’t he, and put under oath and questioned. How is his testimony not more important than handwaving about “talking points?” Please help me understand.

  • eric z says:

    For instance, did the CIA invent and promulgate the “protest about blasphemous film trailer” story, who formulated it, when, and why – was Susan Rice misled by CIA people that the administration trusted, and was the distrustful stuff from the top – Petaeus himself, or spread by lower rung personnel at CIA?

    That’s relevant. Not “talking points.”

    Romney had talking points, he’d cut taxes spend more on the military, and balance the budget. Nobody believed him, and he never gave detail.

    Detailed fact counts, not speculation over “talking points.” Who cooked the “protests over film trailer” story, when, why, and how was it spread/promulgated?

    Any info on that kind of stuff?

  • Gary Gross says:

    In this instance, the White House, specifically Jay Carney, used the term talking points with regards to the document.

    More important than the little quibbles game you’re playing, though, is that the CIA knew al-Qa’ida had planned the attack for the anniversary of 9/11. Our diplomats knew AQIM, Ansar al-Shariah & 8 other militias were within miles of the Benghazi consulate.

    That’s why they kept requesting additional security. Either Hillary or President Obama made the decision that the additional security wasn’t needed.

    They ignored the intelligence that the CIA gathered. Rather than doing his job, President Obama politicized the intelligence reports. That’s what got 4 American patriots killed.

    Everthing else is irrelevant.

Leave a Reply