GOP Rep Admits CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador’s Talking Points On Libya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice's talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration's response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus' statements. Rice's television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice's talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn't know.

Q: He didn't know? What do you mean he didn't know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, "Ok go with those talking points." Again it's interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said "OK" to the revised report –

KING: No, well,

they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK'd it to go. Yeah, they said "Okay for it to go."

Rice has been hit by Republicans for weeks for indicating that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi stemmed from a spontaneous protest related to an anti-Islamic video. However, as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has

pointed out

, the talking points used by Rice were the same unclassified points given to both the administration and Congress by the intelligence community.

Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus'

testimony made clear

that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has

previously reported

that this change in thinking began too late to alter Rice's talking points.

Today's comments by King towards the intelligence community's assessments also mark a sharp departure from his previous accusations that Rice

should have known sooner

that the intelligence that was presented to her was incorrect. Senators

John McCain

(R-AZ) and

Lindsey Graham

(R-SC) have both also recently said that Rice should "have known better" than to make the statements she did during her interviews.

http://thinkprogress...ents/?mobile=nc

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh, OK then I will vote for Susan Rice as UN Ambassador again...wait. NM.

Are you serious? So if the CIA, an administrative branch agency, and the Ambassador to the UN, an administrative branch agency LIED about what happened, it is NOT Obama's fault? Right?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are you serious? So if the CIA, an administrative branch agency, and the Ambassador to the UN, an administrative branch agency LIED about what happened, it is NOT Obama's fault? Right?

That's not the issue, Gary. I know if must be hard to keep up with the goings on while sucking on the government teat. So, I'll cut you some slack here.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Darn it all! There goes another swell Republican/Faux News attack point!

My tinfoil futures are going to tank! Oh wait, read Gary's response to reality, I might be raking it in soon after all...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice's talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration's response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus' statements. Rice's television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice's talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn't know.

Q: He didn't know? What do you mean he didn't know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, "Ok go with those talking points." Again it's interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said "OK" to the revised report –

KING: No, well,

they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK'd it to go. Yeah, they said "Okay for it to go."

Rice has been hit by Republicans for weeks for indicating that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi stemmed from a spontaneous protest related to an anti-Islamic video. However, as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has

pointed out

, the talking points used by Rice were the same unclassified points given to both the administration and Congress by the intelligence community.

Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus'

testimony made clear

that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has

previously reported

that this change in thinking began too late to alter Rice's talking points.

Today's comments by King towards the intelligence community's assessments also mark a sharp departure from his previous accusations that Rice

should have known sooner

that the intelligence that was presented to her was incorrect. Senators

John McCain

(R-AZ) and

Lindsey Graham

(R-SC) have both also recently said that Rice should "have known better" than to make the statements she did during her interviews.

http://thinkprogress...ents/?mobile=nc

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/16/where-did-the-talking-points-on-benghazi-come-from/?hpt=hp_t2

Once again you post something not true. Here is the actual comment by king Verbatim by CNN

“Basically it is still not clear how the final talking points emerged. (Petraeus) said it went through a long process involving many agencies including the Department of Justice, including the State Department and no one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points other than to say the original talking points prepared by the CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out,” said King

[ready4ONE 5,400]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/16/where-did-the-talking-points-on-benghazi-come-from/?hpt=hp_t2

Once again you post something not true. Here is the actual comment by king Verbatim by CNN

“Basically it is still not clear how the final talking points emerged. (Petraeus) said it went through a long process involving many agencies including the Department of Justice, including the State Department and no one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points other than to say the original talking points prepared by the CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out,” said King

Apparently you were too busy posting the blog retort to watch the video embedded in the OP???