Former CIA director David Petraeus spoke behind closed doors to the House Intelligence Committee. According to committee member Peter King (R-NY), Patraeus’ testimony challenged the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video and conflicted with his own statements to lawmakers earlier in September.
Fox News: “His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection.”
Still, the claim that the CIA’s original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.
“The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague “inter-agency process.”
Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.”
If it’s true the Petraeus changed his original story could it be that he was under some sort of duress due to his illicit affair? Did someone with power threaten to break the story of the married four star general’s relationship with another woman? Did Patraeus decide to bring the story into the open thus removing it as a possible object for blackmail?
No matter what the truth finally reveals this tale is not only fodder for gossip mongers but has all the makings of a best seller…and non fiction at that.