General Petraeus: It Wasn’t Me Or Anyone Else At The CIA

More from Petraeus:

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/30/benghazi-early-briefings-changed-story-cia-director-david-petraeus-and-more-read-this-report-by-fncs-catherine-herridge/

Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.

but:

The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.

On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs. Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired — two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.

Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

Fox News is told that Petraeus was “absolute” in his description with few, if any, caveats. As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were “angry, disappointed and frustrated” that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the NCTC referred Fox News to the Sept. 28 statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which said the assessment changed to indicate that it did not stem from a protest, but rather was deliberate and organized. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. … Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

As for the current assessment of the Benghazi attack, a U.S. intelligence official said no one is ruling out the idea militants may have aspired to attack the U.S., though the bulk of available information supports the early assessment that extremists — with ties to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — did not plan the attacks for day or weeks in advance.

But another source told Fox:

One source who heard Petraeus brief also told Fox News, “I can confirm that he explicitly stated both to the House and the Senate oversight committees that members of AQIM and AAS participated in the attack in Benghazi. That assessment still stands.”

So which is it? either?/or? Is it really clear that Obama knew from the beginning and was lying? Or was he just as uncertain then as Fox appears to be now? Based on incomplete and conflicting intelligence, from the different intelligence agencies?

Intelligence officials have given a mixed picture of what happened that day, acknowledging that an investigation is under way. The office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last month acknowledged the strike was a coordinated terror attack, but officials have subsequently said the strike could have been opportunistic — taking their cue from protests over the film in Egypt.

Now, what’s going on in this blog has been the characterization of Benghazi as being a conspiracy/cover-up, directed — ostensibly — by Obama himself or by Obama and Panetta (the latter of whom has a sterling reputation in various positions within government).

The truth is that it’s all hearsay and inconsistent and conflicting hearsay, at that. The news “sources” cited by Fox don’t even tell consistent stories and these stories indicate the involvement of Petraeus (another government servant of sterling reputation).

So what are we dealing with (I ask again). Bad intelligence? Conflicting intelligence, from competing intelligence agencies which still don’t talk to each other, the way that they should? Misinformation, intentionally planted by the intelligence agencies, to assist these agencies in terrorist identification and interdiction? Advice to Obama from his military and intelligence experts not to mount an impromptu rescue mission (which is what Panetta effectively stated)? Failure of Panetta to carry out a direct order from the President to mount such a rescue mission (as suggested by Newt Gingrich and others)?

Or are we simply certain that Obama personally screwed up and that getting out the real facts of what happened doesn’t really matter, because he’s guilty, no matter what?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA