(AP)
SCRUBBING: Behind these doors yesterday in DC, ex-CIA boss David Petraeus told congressional committees his office called Benghazi an al Qaeda attack, but that language was changed. Later he ducked out with security (inset) and headed home. (
)
WASHINGTON — Disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus told lawmakers yesterday that early US intelligence fingered al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists — not crazed protesters — for the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
But references to “al Qaeda” and “extremist” were omitted from the unclassified talking points once it left the CIA and went to the White House, said lawmakers who heard Petraeus’ bombshell closed-door testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.
“Nobody knows where it was changed,” fumed Rep. Pete King (R-LI), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
“It was nobody in the intelligence community, so it goes to the Justice Department, State Department, White House — somewhere along the line,” he said.
King called for White House staff to testify in the committee’s probe of the botched response to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack “to see if anyone there changed the talking points . . . and why.”
“There is still a lot of unanswered questions,” he said of the Benghazi probe. “It’s far from over.”
Some lawmakers claimed the language in the talking points was changed so the terrorists wouldn’t be alerted that US authorities were on their trail. Others said that explanation was preposterous.
EDITORIAL: PETRAEUS LEAVES QUESTIONS
Petraeus, a former four-star Army general who resigned from the top CIA job last week citing a fling with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, insisted the intelligence process had not been “politicized.”
“The general made it clear that there was no politicization of the process,” said committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
King also challenged Petraeus’ recollection that he told lawmakers in a Sept. 14 briefing that al Qaeda was responsible.
“That’s not my impression,” said King, who maintains the Sept. 14 briefing perpetuated the story line that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video that lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.
Republicans and Democrats in the hearings came away with divergent interpretations of Petraeus’ testimony.
The Sept. 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi — which killed US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and CIA employees Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods — ignited a DC political firestorm.
Republicans have blasted President Obama for allegedly ignoring warning signs before the attack, moving slowly to send help during the daylong assault and then waiting more than a week to acknowledge it was an act of terrorism.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has denounced it as “either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence” by Obama and his administration.
McCain asked Petraeus yesterday when he first discussed the Benghazi attacks with Obama, and Petraeus responded, “I didn’t.”
Petraeus said he only spoke to the director of National Intelligence.
“If I were president, and clearly I am not, I certainly would want to talk to the whole national-security team, and one of the key members is the CIA whose personnel were killed,” said McCain, the GOP presidential nominee who lost to Obama in 2008.
Obama and administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice, stuck to the story that the attack grew from a “spontaneous protest” over the video up until Sept. 19.
The involvement of Rice, who repeated the “spontaneous protest” story on Sunday TV talk shows Sept. 16, became a political flashpoint when her name was floated as the next secretary of state when Hillary Clinton steps down next year.
Republicans accused her of lying to the American people, and said it should disqualify her for the post. McCain and others vowed to filibuster her nomination.
But Petraeus’ testimony yesterday helped Democrats rally to defend Rice, after the former CIA head vouched he had “signed off” on the revised talking points in which “al Qaeda” terrorists were replaced with “protesters,” ignoring the initial CIA assessment.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said it bolstered Rice’s credibility and showed she had been treated “unfairly” by Republicans. “The key is they were unclassified talking points at a very early stage,” she said. “I don’t think she should have been pilloried for this.”
But Feinstein stressed that the administration botched the initial intelligence on Benghazi.
Intelligence Committee member Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said Rice “did completely the appropriate thing” in using those talking points.
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) speculated that the confusion between terrorist and protesters could have come from the difference between classified and unclassified talking points.
“There may have been confusion with the ‘unclassified’ talking points . . . Perhaps there’s greater clarity in the classified talking points,” said Langevin. “There were perhaps some subtleties that were used that may have been understood by some to mean one thing, where others may have had a different understanding of words — for example, ‘extremist’ versus ‘terrorist.’ ”
But Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, countered that Rice “went beyond” the revised talking points to down play terrorist involvement in the murderous attack.
He suggested Rice’s statement was politically spun as her boss, Obama, was seeking re-election.
“She even mentioned that, under the leadership of Barack Obama, we had decimated al Qaeda. She knew at that point in time that al Qaeda was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens,” said Chambliss.
Prior to the hearing, House committee members agreed on a single question to ask Petraeus about the sex scandal that ended his career: Did the affair impact his testimony on Benghazi?
Petraeus, who was described as somber and contrite on that subject, simply answered: “No.”
The timing of Petraeus’ abrupt resignation, coming just three days after Obama won re-election and a week before he was scheduled to testify before Congress on Benghazi, prompted speculation of intrigue.
King said he still was not convinced that there wasn’t a connection.
“We’re going to have to wait until the whole story is told,” said King.
Petraeus was originally scheduled to testify Thursday before the intelligence committees. His replacement, acting CIA Director Michael Morell, appeared in his place.
Committee members scheduled a second closed-door hearing yesterday for Petraeus, who was in charge at the time of the Benghazi attack and made a personal visit to Libya to investigate what happened.
Petraeus declined comment to reporters. He avoided the media by being whisked secretly into committee rooms through secure, side doors.