Benghazi: Petraeus Says CIA Knew Consulate Was Terrorist Attack Almost Immediately

Patrick Frye

Former CIA Director David Petraeus says the CIA knew "almost immediately" that the Libya Consulate attack was a terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda-linked group. This will supposedly be what Petraeus will testify before Congress behind closed members. According to CNN, Petraeus "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." There was supposedly an "overwhelming amount of evidence [that] said this was a terror attack."

Congress legislators saw a "real-time film (showing) exactly what happened" on September 11th in Benghazi, Libya. They have video starting before the attack began up "through the incident and the exodus," said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who attended closed-door sessions of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) stated on Fox News that former Petraeus knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism. He goes one step further, claiming that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. As in, Petraeus specifically claims Rice's talking points were edited by someone in the Obama administration to de-emphasize the possibility of terrorism.

""The original talking points were much more specific about al-Qaeda involvement and yet the finals ones just said' indications of extremists,'" King says. "It said 'indicate' even though there was clearly evidence at the CIA that there was al-Qaeda involvement."

This is important because for weeks the Obama administration officially blamed the Benghazi attacks on a random riot inspired by a Youtube video called "Innocence of Muslims." But how did this come to be?

"[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," Barbara Starr of CNN reports. "When he looks at what Susan Rice said, 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."

Explaining why the White House chose to change the reports, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) had this to say, "We were given a very early assessment of events in Benghazi, and we were given an unclassified version that we could share with the public. That unclassified version turned out to be inaccurate, as we found out later."

Obama's critics are not letting Benghazi be explained away so easily.

"What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed -- read that, lied -- to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy," said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). "The arrogance and dishonesty reflected in all of this is a little bit breathtaking."

Petraeus claiming the CIA already knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost immediately is a political bombshell. I have to wonder if these revelations may lead to further repercussions for Obama...including impeachment?