Althouse: "Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions."

May 22, 2013

"Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions."

"Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified...."

25 comments:

Rusty said...: But the talking points do not agree with the facts as we know them.How can that be?
You don't suppose that the High School Newspaper of Record, The Washington Post, is carrying water for the administration. do you? Were they invited to the White House for the super secret journalist meeting?; 5/22/13, 7:28 AM
Cody Jarrett said...: "The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.

The only government entity that did not object to the detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted.

“What [committee members] were looking for was the lowest common denominator,” said a senior administration official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the editing process. “That’s not what the agency originally produced.”"

Much more interesting.

So Petraeus wanted to throw out the whole mess--"hey, we told you guys this was a bad idea".

The funny part is the WaPo saying the WH was okay with releasing that--I could be remembering wrong, but didn't they trot out the video almost instantly?

So...yeah.; 5/22/13, 7:31 AM
Cody Jarrett said...: Heh. I was going to accuse the WaPo of carrying somebody's water...or something, decided not to. I see Rusty had no such issues.; 5/22/13, 7:32 AM
West Town said...: Look for this "bureaucratic mediator" yarn in the weeks ahead.; 5/22/13, 7:38 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Lets see.

Petraeus is the shadowy roommate/tenant coming and going at strange hours, who, after getting evicted, re-emerges to... save the day?

Is that good nuff for the women?

Maybe it has taken this long to make him an offer... didn't he have aspirations like Weiner?; 5/22/13, 7:57 AM
Cody Jarrett said...: LOL. The White House is the mediator. It's still funny half an hour later.

I imagine in another half hour it'll become sad though.

Ahh, the WaPo!; 5/22/13, 8:02 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: When Luke came back in General Hospital, Laura did marry him.; 5/22/13, 8:07 AM
West Town said...: Yeah. They did an excellent job as "mediator", didn't they?

People just can't understand the transcendental and transformative power of "hope" and "change". But wait, there's more!; 5/22/13, 8:13 AM
West Town said...: Their message seems to be "trust us, we've pretty much fucked up on all of these things".; 5/22/13, 8:15 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Mediator might be coming from A Beautiful Mind (2001)... The main character won a Nobel Prize for devising a formula used in labor negotiations where both sides come away winners... or something like that.

The main character also suffered from schizophrenia... but he did get Jennifer Connelly.; 5/22/13, 8:30 AM
cubanbob said...: Their message seems to be "trust us, we've pretty much fucked up on all of these things".

The real message is "you fucked-up. You trusted us".

In retrospect Hillary was sort of right. He did betray us.; 5/22/13, 8:32 AM
Michael said...: Something bad was going down there. We dont get to know.; 5/22/13, 8:58 AM
Michael said...: Something bad was going down there. We dont get to know.; 5/22/13, 9:03 AM
Chip S. said...: Lem, I thought he got his Nobel for figuring out how math nerds could pick up hot chicks in bars.

Maybe I need to watch that movie again.; 5/22/13, 9:14 AM
Rusty said...: CEO-MMP said...
Heh. I was going to accuse the WaPo of carrying somebody's water...or something, decided not to. I see Rusty had no such issues.

I'm edgy that way.; 5/22/13, 9:23 AM
edutcher said...: This is why we found out about Paula Broadinthebeam.

And could it be the threatened next round of whistleblowers really do have something devastating to tell about the Choom Gang?; 5/22/13, 9:24 AM
Michael K said...: September 14. That was when the Petraeus affair was still a secret. Except from the White House.

The coverup seems to be holding. Who cares what those diplomats say ?; 5/22/13, 9:49 AM
SGT Ted said...: So, they are trying to pin this on Petraeus.

The WH was mediator between State and CIA/NSC?

Bullshit. The WH is in charge of ALL of them and tells them what is what after the briefings are done. The CINC, President GolfPants, failed to lead. Now they are trying to play stupid and can count on the WAPO to provide convenient excuses and blame shifting to cover for their incompetence.; 5/22/13, 10:48 AM
Real American said...: that's far too convoluted an explanation. the real explanation is that Petraeus wouldn't go along with the blame-youtube talking points. At first he remained publicly silent because they had the goods on him, but then they outed his affair publicly anyway when it didn't matter any more because they knew that he'd make life difficult for them if he was still at CIA. This was all to save Hillary's butt and cover for Obama's incapacity during 9/11/12.; 5/22/13, 11:28 AM
G Joubert said...: Subpoena Patraeus, swear him in, then let him go. I'm pretty sure he's got lots to say.; 5/22/13, 11:33 AM
mariner said...: G. Joubert,
Subpoena Patraeus, swear him in, then let him go. I'm pretty sure he's got lots to say.

But never in public. It would embarrass Democrats, and Republicans don't have the spine for that.; 5/22/13, 12:08 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/22/13, 12:22 PM
n.n said...: The security before the assault, and the response to the assault, are two different issues. The most pressing issue is the latter, where Americans under assault by a terrorist force received no assistance from the Commander in Chief, and as a result four people were murdered.; 5/22/13, 12:42 PM
Sam L. said...: It's the WaPo. I don't trust Tass either.; 5/22/13, 1:42 PM
Oso Negro said...: One thing I have not seen of late is mention of the relation of the outing of Petraeus to the Benghazi scandal. Independent events? I think not.; 5/22/13, 4:22 PM