Forget Susan Rice; who gave Jay Carney his September 14th Talking Points?

As a direct result of the November 16th testimony given to House and Senate Intelligence committees by former CIA Director David Petraeus, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has come under the public spotlight. Everyone wants to know who altered her talking points prior to her five Sunday show appearances on September 16th, five days after the attack in Benghazi. According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Petraeus told the committee that the original CIA talking points made specific reference to al-Qaeda involvement. Rice's talking points did not.

CBS News reported that the talking points prepared for Rice were issued on September 15th. Petraeus briefed both Senate and  House Intelligence committees on September 13th and 14th respectively. After his November 16th testimony, King told reporters that Petraeus insisted that he always knew that it was a terrorist attack that involved al-Qaeda elements. The congressman said the recollections of both himself and Petraeus about the September 14th testimony were different. King remembered Petraeus saying the attack arose from a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. Petraeus' recollection was that he knew it was a terror attack.

Again, here is what King said after Petraeus testified on November 16th. Take note of what King says about the CIA talking points going through a "long process" that involved State and DOJ:



For the sake of argument, let's assume that Petraeus' recollection was correct and that on September 14th, he testified that there was al-Qaeda involvement in the attack and that it wasn't caused by a video. We're to believe then, that he delivered CIA talking points.  If Petraeus delivered the unchanged CIA talking points on September 14th, that "long process" likely would have begun sometime thereafter, taking approximately 24 hours to be given to Susan Rice.

Hang on a second.

At precisely 11:42am on September 14th, the daily White House press briefing began. During that briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney - not just the voice of the administration but of the President himself - said this:



Here is the corresponding portion of the transcript via RCP:

JAKE TAPPER: Wouldn't it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But, Jake, let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary, that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Again, if Petraeus was truthful with the committee on November 16th, that the CIA knew almost immediately that the attack was not "spontaneous" or in response to a video and that he relayed that information to the Senate Intelligence committee on September 13th and to the House Intelligence committee on September 14th, then Jay Carney lied. This is significant because Carney gets approved talking points from the President. Again, Rice is the voice of the administration while Carney is the voice of the President specifically.

Now, back to King's assertion that the CIA talking points went through a "long process, involving many agencies". Taking Petraeus at his word on November 16th, that he issued CIA talking points to congressional committees on September 13th and 14th, how did they go through such a lengthy process quickly enough for Carney to enunciate the new talking points before lunch on the 14th?

So, Rice was given her altered talking points on September 15th but the voice of the president had them by the morning of September 14th.

The question that needs to be asked is not who altered Susan Rice's talking points but who altered Jay Carney's talking points one day earlier?

This smacks of racism and sexism by the way. The black, female, U.N. Ambassador is being hung out to dry by the administration while the white, male, press secretary is getting a pass.

What say you Marcia Fudge and Gwen Moore?

**UPDATE** CBS News is now reporting that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reviewed the talking points before they were given to Rice and the House intelligence committee:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Uh, are my eyes deceiving me or did the date that Rice received the talking points change? Does this mean Clapper reviewed the talking points on the 14th or that they were given to Rice on the 14th? CBS no less, reported on November 15th that Rice received the talking points on September 15th:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier.

So which is it? Was Susan Rice given the talking points on September 14th or on September 15th?

Incidentally, James Clapper is the guy who told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular". This is relevant because that lie speaks to his credibility:

Petraeus: Administration's knowledge of affair did not influence my testimony

The headlines that seem to be dominating the news relative to the closed-door testimony of former CIA Director David Petraeus in front of House and Senate Intelligence Committees was that someone changed the CIA's talking points before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice recited them on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th. Petraeus reportedly told the committees that he knew the attack was coordinated and not the result of a spontaneous reaction to a video.

That is indeed significant but there is another aspect of Petraeus' testimony that warrants further investigation. When House Intelligence committee member, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was asked if the extramarital affair Petraeus engaged in with biographer Paula Broadwell in any way influenced the former CIA Director's testimony on September 14th, King volunteered that Petraeus said that it did not.

Hopefully, the next question that was asked was:

Did you know at the time of your September 14th testimony that the administration knew about your extramarital affair?

If that question was asked, what was the answer?

Via MRC (at the 1:15 mark):



Lt. Col. Ralph Peters indicated on November 9th that he thought the administration likely held the affair over Petraeus' head, as did Charles Krauthammer on November 13th. If such a thing were true, it would constitute blackmail and be a much more serious infraction by the White House than altering the CIA talking points from September 14th by taking out any reference to al-Qaeda and putting in that line about the attack being caused by the anti-Muhammad video.

While it is a bit of a bombshell for Petraeus to admit that he knew the 9/11/12 attack was terrorism and not related to a video, he almost had to concede that ground based on what had come out so far. Not doing so would have opened up an entirely new can of worms.

Also take note of what King said in the above video when Petraeus allegedly insisted that he knew it was terrorism all along. King made reference to the fact that Petraeus clearly left a different impression during his September 14th testimony. Here is the opening of an ABC news report at the time:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

This is important because it looks like Petraeus wants to say he didn't say what he said. King made reference to that but doesn't underscore it enough. On September 14th, Petraeus seemed to allege that the attack began as a spontaneous reaction which drew in al-Qaeda elements. On November 16th, he seemed to say the attack was coordinated and planned in advance by al-Qaeda elements.

Let's go back to that October 26th speech by Paula Broadwell, Petraeus' mistress. In it, she said two things of import relative to the discrepancies between how Petraeus testified on September 14th and November 16th. First, at the 1:30 mark, Broadwell asserts that Petraeus knew what was going on within twenty-four hours of the attack in Benghazi and then says everyone thought that all of the protests were the result of the video.



So which is it? Did Petraeus know within 24 hours of the attack that it was an act of terrorism that had nothing to do with the video or did he think it was the result of the video? Inconsistencies between what he said on September 14th and November 16th absolutely exist. That is what makes this an issue of Petraeus' credibility.

That is why questions about the possibility that Petraeus' September 14th testimony being unduly influenced by an administration that knew of his extramarital affair should continue to be asked.

That would mean blackmail, which would be an impeachable offense. This debate about whether the talking points were changed, though important, pales by comparison.