Former CIA Director David Petraeus was expected to tell lawmakers in a pair of closed-door hearings Friday morning that he believed the Libya attack was terrorism within the first 24 hours and suspected a regional Al Qaeda affiliate and the militant Ansar al-Sharia were behind it, a source close to Petraeus told Fox News.

Petraeus arrived to meet with House lawmakers early Friday morning. His account would be sure to raise more questions from lawmakers, considering the conflicting narratives that have emerged from the intelligence community and other agencies about the attack. Petraeus himself gave a briefing three days after the attack, according to sources, in which he described it as a protest over an anti-Islam film that spun out of control.

It was similar to the account given on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16 by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice -- and Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.

Yet Petraeus, Fox News was told, on Friday was planning to bring with him the original "talking points" prepared by the CIA.

The source said Petraeus "has no idea what was provided" to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.

"He had no idea she was going on talk shows" until the White House announced it one or two days before.

Petraeus' testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees Friday morning could fuel, rather than dampen, the ongoing conflict in the administration over why officials initially stressed the anti-Islam film. Fox News has learned that his testimony will be under oath; he has already started to meet with lawmakers on the House committee....

Originally posted by Asher:
Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus (peh-TRAY'-uhs) has told Congress that references to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb were removed from the agency's draft talking points of what sparked the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

On Saturday, the White House said the only changes the administration made to the CIA’s talking points on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were minor ones. The response comes after some lawmakers’ reports that, in his testimony, David Petraeus said the talking points included reference to terrorism/al Qaeda, which was later edited out.

“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes said. “Other than that we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

Rep. Peter King has been one of the lawmakers present at the closed-door hearings, who’s said the testimony mentioned edited talking points. Asked who may have made those changes, King said, “It could be anywhere in the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, the White House.” It’s important to find out who and why, he said.

“I have my own beliefs, that for whatever reasons, the administration honestly believes that the war against al Qaeda is pretty much over and that’s the message that they wanted to present,” he added....

Former CIA Director General David Petraeus has hired a top Washington lawyer to help him navigate the fallout from a career-ending affair, Reuters has confirmed.

The lawyer, Robert Barnett of Williams & Connolly, is known for negotiating book deals for the political elite, from President Barack Obama to one-time vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Barnett will help Petraeus as he exits government, Reuters confirmed. The news was first reported by Politico, which said that no book is planned.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the Justice Department and Congress are investigating Petraeus' conduct over the extra-marital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

The former four-star general has said his resignation was solely because of the affair and that he did not give classified information to Broadwell.

Barnett has been a partner at Williams & Connolly in Washington for 34 years, according to a biography of him posted on the firm's website. In that time, he has built an unconventional practice representing best-selling authors, political leaders, television news correspondents and other high-profile clients.

In addition to Obama and Palin, other authors he has represented include novelist Mary Higgins Clark and entertainer Barbra Streisand.

He has also helped former government officials from across the political spectrum navigate their return to private life, including former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, and former members of Congress.

He joined Williams & Connolly in 1975 and became a partner in 1978.

Senior Republican members of Congress confirmed Sunday that the Obama administration changed CIA guidance to senior officials that had identified the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi as an al Qaeda attack.

“The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early,” said chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.).

The CIA “talking points” on Benghazi initially identified the attackers as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked terrorists but senior administration officials removed the reference, Rogers said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Meanwhile, White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters traveling with the president on Saturday that the White House made only minor changes in the first comments by a White House official on the Benghazi security scandal.

“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment,” Rhodes said on Air Force One en route to Asia. “The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.” (...)

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack....

Originally posted by noname762:
That asinine Pelosi said just last week she's a hoping Hillary Clinton wins the nomination for the next run at the Whitehouse....

...Benghazi Lawsuit No. 1: JW Seeks U.S. Consulate Videos at Time of Attack

Judicial Watch sued the State Department seeking “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the deadly attack.

Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its December 19, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:

“Any and all videos and photographs depicting U.S. Consulate facilities in Benghazi, Libya (including the Special Mission Compound and the Annex) between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012, that were provided to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for Benghazi and/or to any individual member of the ARB.”

The State Department acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA request on January 4, 2013, and was required by law to respond by February 4, 2013. So far, no documents have been produced.

The Obama administration cannot claim it came up empty in trying to locate the records. The records exist for certain because they are referenced by the ARB, which was convened by then – Secretary of State Clinton last December, in its final report.

In fact, according to ARB Chairman Ambassador Tom Pickering, the Board “reviewed thousands of documents and watched hours of video” during the course of its investigation. The Obama administration also reportedly shared Benghazi video with certain members of Congress. The State Department, however, has refused to comply with JW’s FOIA seeking access to these materials on behalf of the American people.

“It’s an easy guess as to why the Obama administration is refusing to turn these records over. Any video or photos will tell us more about Benghazi – in contrast to the lies and spin coming out of Obama administration officials,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Benghazi Lawsuit Number 2: JW Seeks Details Regarding Contract with Foreign Security Company

In another FOIA lawsuit against the Obama State Department, Judicial Watch seeks access to records concerning a contract totaling nearly $400,000 that was awarded to a foreign firm for “Security Guards and Patrol Services” at the Benghazi Consulate prior to the Benghazi attacks. This contract was signed on February 17, 2012, and May 3, 2012, and at the time was identified only as “Award ID SAQMMA12COO92.” Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on February 25, 2013.

Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following pursuant to a November 7, 2012, FOIA request:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the $387,413.68 contract awarded by the Department of State to an unidentified foreign awardee for “Security Guards and Patrol Services.” According to the record of this expenditure on USASpending.gov, the contract was signed on February 17, 2012, and May 3, 2012, and is identified by Award ID SAQMMA12COO92.

The State Department acknowledged receiving the November 7, 2012, Judicial Watch FOIA request on November 12, 2012, and was required by law to respond by December 20, 2012, at the latest. Yet again, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, JW has not received a meaningful response.

And what is suspicious about this contract?

According to Breitbart.com, when first questioned about foreign Benghazi security guards on Friday, September 14, 2012, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emphatically denied that State had hired any private firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the claim was made yesterday that a company that is a spinoff of Blackwater, in fact, proposed or contracted the United States Government for this particular kind of eventuality, and it was caught up in some sort of bureaucratic –

MS. NULAND: Completely untrue with regard to Libya. I checked that this morning. At no time did we plan to hire a private security company for Libya.

QUESTION: Toria [stet], I just want to make sure I understood that, because I didn’t understand your first question. You said – your first answer. You said that at no time did you have contracts with private security companies in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

However, on September 17, 2012, WIRED magazine broke the story that Nuland had provided false information in her September 14 press conference, saying: “Contrary to Friday’s claim by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that ‘at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,’ the department inked a contract for ‘security guards and patrol services’ on May 3, 2012, for $387,413.68. An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only ‘foreign security awardees’ as its recipient.”

In her daily press briefing on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Nuland admitted that she had made an “error” concerning the State Department’s hiring of foreign security firms in Benghazi. “There was a group called Blue Mountain Group, which is a private security company with permits to operate in Libya,” Nuland said. “They were hired to provide local Libyan guards who operated inside the gate doing things like operating the security access equipment, screening cars, that kind of thing.”

According to Breitbart.com, Blue Mountain was chosen for the Benghazi security operation because it was willing to sign the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya prohibiting guards from carrying weapons with live ammunition.

Benghazi Lawsuit Number 3: JW Seeks “Doctored” Talking Points Memo

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on February 14, 2013, against the Obama Administration’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence seeking access to a controversial “speaking points” memo that seems to suggest that intelligence officials believed from the outset that al Qaeda was behind the attack despite public statements to the contrary issued by Obama administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Specifically, JW seeks:

Any and all memoranda, assessments, analyses, and/or talking points regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and/or the killing of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence between September 11, 2012, and September 20, 2012. This request includes, but is not limited to, the “speaking points” memorandum referred to by Senator Dianne Feinstein during a televised interview on October 17, 2012….

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged receiving JW’s request on October 19, 2012, and was required by law to respond by November 26, 2012. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the agency failed to produce any records responsive to the request, indicate when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrated that responsive records are exempt from production.

Regarding the “speaking points” memorandum requested by Judicial Watch, according to the CBS television affiliate in San Francisco, Senator Feinstein said: “When asked by CBS 5 if there was an intelligence flaw, the senior California senator [Feinstein] who hails from San Francisco replied: ‘I think what happened was the director of intelligence…put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment. I think that was possibly a mistake.’”

Former CIA Director General David Petraeus reportedly testified before Congress that the initial speaking points produced by the CIA “stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda,” and suggested the terrorism reference was removed sometime during an interagency review process.

In the days and weeks following the Benghazi attacks, the Obama administration blamed the incident on a rudimentary Internet video deemed offensive to Muslims. This false claim was repeated by both Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton in multiple public statements and press interviews.

For example, at a September 14, 2012, event honoring the four victims of the Benghazi attack, then-Secretary of State Clinton made the following statement: “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen the rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful video that we had nothing to do with.”

Did Hillary Clinton know this was a lie when she said it? She certainly was in no mood to talk about it during her testimony before Congress. When asked about the alleged discrepancy between the intelligence community’s assessment and the Obama administration’s public statements during congressional testimony, Ms. Clinton shouted, “What difference does it make?…I personally was not focused on talking points.”

“With all of the Benghazi lies coming out of the Obama administration, the only way to get at the truth is to release these records immediately,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration’s lawless Benghazi cover-up is a disgrace and an insult to the victims of the attacks and their families. The Obama Benghazi scandal makes Iran-Contra seem like patty-cake by comparison.”

Originally posted by Sisu:
So what did you think AF? Did you watch it all?

Originally posted by qazycat:
I am not a betting man, but I would bet a million$$$(if I had it) that NOTHING WILL BE DONE!!

Sept. 12, 2012: Anthea Butler, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania:

"How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now. When Americans die because you are stupid..."

Originally posted by fal3:
How could the Demo's be worried ? So long as they make the majority depend on them for food stamps, housing, and can control which cable programs are reaching the "projects," they have NOTHING to worry about.

Control a person's food, water, housing, and what he hears and sees, and you have the perfect set-up for complete control of that person.

...Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown....

...Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.

“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)

Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true....

Originally posted by Holden Karre:
Were there any Marines at the embassy. Oh Shit, the guvmint is not telling the truth... I jus caint believe it...

Marine Corps Col. George Bristol was in a key position in the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) chain of command the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As such, he's high on the list of people that some Republican members of Congress want to interview. But they don't know where he is and the Pentagon isn't telling.

Pentagon spokesman Major Robert Firman told CBS News that the Department of Defense "cannot compel retired members to testify before Congress."

"They say he's retired and they can't reach out to him," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CBS News. "That's hogwash."

Bristol, a martial arts master, was commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara based in Stuttgart, Germany until he retired last March. In an article in Stars and Stripes, Bristol is quoted at his retirement ceremony as telling his troops that "an evil" has descended on Africa, referring to Islamic militant groups. "It is on us to stomp it out."

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have asked the Pentagon for assistance in locating Bristol so that they can question him about events the night of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. But those efforts have come up empty.

"The Department of Defense has been entirely forthcoming on all matters related to our response to the attacks in Benghazi from the outset," said Pentagon spokesman Firman. He added that "any congressional committee can call the witnesses it needs" through subpoena, if necessary.

On June 26, the House Armed Services Committee questioned other military members in the AFRICOM chain of command in a closed hearing. The witnesses included Bristol's former superiors: commander of Special Operations Command Africa Rear Adm. Brian Losey and former AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham.

As to why the Defense Department made Ham available but not Bristol, when Ham is also retired from his post, the Pentagon said Ham was not yet officially retired.

Chaffetz says the Defense Department has actually been more responsive on Benghazi than other federal agencies, with a few exceptions including helping locate Bristol.

"We will end up talking to [Bristol] at some point," said Chaffetz. "He had a very important role and we want to talk to him about it...All this raises concern when there's so much resistance to letting us speak with him." (...)