Petraeus Knew Benghazi Was Terrorist Attack "Almost Instantly"

CNN's Barbara Starr told Wolf Blitzer that she was informed that David Petraeus will, behind closed doors, tell Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks."

The report goes on to say that "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points."

"When he looks at what Susan Rice said," CNN reports, "here is what Petraeus's take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus -- it is believed -- will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information."

In addition, The Washington Free Beacon reports:

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) said Friday that the original talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency were different from the final talking points put out by the administration, after testimony from former CIA director David H. Petraeus. King said Petraeus testified that the original talking points produced by the CIA discussed al Qaeda involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead. “The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement, and the final ones just said indications of extremists,” King said. “(It) said indicate event though there was clearly evidence to the CIA that there was al Qaeda involvement.” “(Petraeus) said it went through a long process, through many agencies, through the Department of Justice, through the State Department, and no one knows, yet, exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points,” King said. ”Other than to say that the original talking points prepared by the CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out.”

So we have to assume that Susan Rice was operating under different orders and talking points than that of the intelligence community. Is anyone else seeing where this is going? Guy Benson at does and he writes:

These assertions belie liberals' excuse-making on Susan Rice's behalf and expose the president's faux indignation during his first post-election press conference as contrived and phony. Five days after the attack, Rice was deployed on every major Sunday morning news program to recite talking points that directly contradicted the immediate (and fairly obvious) intelligence. According to Petraeus' testimony, the initial information provided by the US intelligence community established a clear link to terrorism, yet Rice told the American people that the administration had no reason to believe the raid was premeditated, adding that the violence grew out of "spontaneous" protests related to an irrelevant online video. Obama passionately stated this week that Rice didn't have any special knowledge of what actually transpired in Benghazi before she appeared on those shows (which begs the question of why she, of all people, was designated as the White House's point person). She was speaking at the direction of the White House, he explained. If this is true, someone at the White House radically revised her talking points. Who did this, and why? And even if Rice was unwittingly repeating a distorted version of events, why did the broader administration play down (or outright dismiss) the pre-planned terrorism reality for weeks, while playing up the red herring YouTube clip? Remember, Hillary Clinton denounced this video as she stood beside the caskets of the fallen, and Obama condemned it numerous times in his United Nations speech.

It looks like they have brought in the clowns for this five start circus, but it's not turning out to be the 'Greatest Show on Earth."

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



  • emad

    You are talking about terrorism and hate-Qaeda In fact, you who supported the al-Qaeda and terrorism with money and weapons in Afghanistan and drink from the cup on September 11.And now repeat the error again ,Obama supported terrorism by $ 8 billion and takes it the Muslim Brotherhood to implement the Greater Middle East Project, a division of states and the fragmentation and displacement of people by killing and destruction.And the brotherhood succeeded Bribe Patterson for sending error information to America that the brothers are able to control the Egyptian people. And now Patterson is talking for Terrorism. You make the terrorism for the money you devotional money . but you will die and not take my money with you.

  • Don

    I do believe that Barrack Obama and Ambassador Stevens have a history from Chicago and the bath house where Barrack Obama hung with and had affairs with other men. I do believe that Ambassador Stevens is jest another of the gay people that have been involved with barrack Obama and they are all now dead. Benghazi was jest a method for Obama to eliminate another person that could cause him trouble so when he had the chance he did what ever it took to eliminate another problem for him. The word is that Obama was to have had the Muslim Brotherhood kidnap Ambassador Stevens for some reason only Obama knows and Valéry Jarrett I am sure knows the reason because she does run the Presidency and Barrack Obama is jest a figure head for her.

  • spoony

    Ok, let'd get this straight! We have an embassy in a foriegn country that is full of people who like to kill Americans. All of a sudden our embassy comes under fire from people outside the embassy with weapons that ordinaryily aren't carried around on your person; like mortars, RPGS, etc. Those people cannot be classified as any other than a TERRORIST group no matter what you want to label them! Get it? Right away you know damn well what they are whether they have big signs hanging around their neck or not!
    The security that was assigned to that embassy was not there leaving it open for attack; why was that? somebody needs to have their ass kicked up between their shoulders!

  • Burton Keeble

    I would like to hear Patreus' testimony instead of Barbara Starr's report of what she was told Patreus would say.

  • vet

    Will the truth come out that we were selling missiles and guns to the al-qaeda which by the way is treason.He knew to much and the deal went bad and he must pay the price under the laws of the UCMJ obumers actions would be held for high treason.The worst cover up story ever told and I can only imagine who made it.

  • ZagoZana

    Yes they knew but they didn't want the ENEMY know that they new the truth about the situation.
    You see if they let out that they knew the truth then they would let on information that they know what was going on.
    Spies don't tell other spies that they are spying on them!

  • DOOM

    I knew that, two. Anyone that has spent any amount of time in the military knows that protesters don't carry RPGs and attack in waves. I suspect that the Commander-in-Chief knew this as well, but couldn't exactly admit that he didn't have Al Qaeda on the run, as he is so fond of claiming.