Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on November 18, 2012, 10:57:40 AM
-
Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack
Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
Security was high on Capitol Hill as closed sessions of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees met on Friday.
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: November 16, 2012 309 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Save
E-mail
Share
Print
Single Page
Reprints
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.
Related in Opinion
Op-Ed Columnist: Hacking General Petraeus (November 17, 2012)
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
.
Enlarge This Image
Luis M. Alvarez/Associated Press
David H. Petraeus, right, entered his home in Arlington, Va., followed by security agents, after testifying on Capitol Hill on Friday.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (309) »
Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.
In his first public appearance since he resigned last week, Mr. Petraeus testified before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in back-to-back closed-door hearings as lawmakers from both parties continued to wrestle with questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and why its public portrayal conflicted with the intelligence agencies’ classified assessments.
“They knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation,” said Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
During his testimony, Mr. Petraeus expressed regret for his affair. Lawmakers did not ask him about it. In addition to what the administration knew about assailants, they focused their questions on possible security lapses at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, particularly given a spate of attacks this year in Benghazi against the American Mission, the British ambassador’s convoy and the Red Cross.
State Department officials have said five diplomatic security officers were at the mission on Sept. 11, including two traveling with Mr. Stevens. They were initially up against more than 50 fighters, armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, who easily breached the compound and set fire to it.
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said Mr. Petraeus’s testimony showed that “clearly the security measures were inadequate despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of Sept. 11.”
But many of the questions from lawmakers dealt with how the intelligence services and the administration over all responded to a request from the House committee for unclassified talking points about what happened, in advance of a closed briefing by Mr. Petraeus on Sept. 14, three days after the attack.
The issue took on added resonance after Republicans criticized the ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, for suggesting on Sunday talk shows five days after the assault that the siege in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest rather than an opportunistic terrorist attack.
Democrats leapt to Ms. Rice’s defense on Friday, saying she was simply following the unclassified talking points provided to her. “I really think Ambassador Rice is being treated unfairly,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee.
The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.
Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.
At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html
-
there you have it. Closure on the issue, as far as legal/political goes.
obama didn't call it terror related because it was an ongoing investigation.
Calling it that would have helped the bad guys.
Does this response smell fishy? You bet it does.
But that really does give them some wiggle room - for everyone - and lets everyone pass the buck for blame.
"we all knew it was a terror act, but national security dictated we didn't blame it on that..."
Not true, we all know it, but how can you argue with that classification?
-
dream on
benghazi was crappy aborted coverup by obama
bottom line it didn't nuke his reelection scam
sigh
Christie Walker 2016!!
-
How the hell does it sound fishy? Lmao.
-
benghazi was terroism since they had rockets, and obama was scared of terrorism failure on his part ruining the election so he misdirected with democrat media
Now they edit questions allowed during hearings and deny.
Is there nothing that Obama can he held accountable for?
Dang.
-
benghazi was terroism since they had rockets, and obama was scared of terrorism failure on his part ruining the election so he misdirected with democrat media
Now they edit questions allowed during hearings and deny.
Is there nothing that Obama can he held accountable for?
Dang.
You will believe what you want no matter what evidence is presented.
-
by the way this is going exactly like I said it would. It's actually a simple formula, whatever the GOP claims take the opposite position and you will be correct. :D
-
by the way this is going exactly like I said it would. It's actually a simple formula, whatever the GOP claims take the opposite position and you will be correct. :D
Yup the opposite of lies is the truth
-
by the way this is going exactly like I said it would. It's actually a simple formula, whatever the GOP claims take the opposite position and you will be correct. :D
they're making themselves irrelevant ;D