Those who thought David Petraeus’ congressional testimony would clear the air about the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack were wrong.
Indeed, the ex-CIA director’s closed-door appearance yesterday before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees raised even more disturbing questions.
Questions that the Obama White House needs to answer — urgently, and in detail.
Since his testimony was not made public, accounts of what he said depended on second-hand sources — partisan sources.
By far the most interesting snippet from the hearing room, as relayed by several legislators, was his insistence that he believed from the start that the attack was a premeditated act of terrorism.
Moreover, that line went, the CIA’s initial talking points not only identified it as terrorism but also pinned responsibility on two specific al Qaeda affiliates.
But those talking points were edited by intelligence and other federal agencies to remove any reference to terrorism — though Petraeus signed off on the final version, according to Republicans.
Members agree that Petraeus insisted that the excision was made only for security reasons, not to give political cover.
But he also testified that he still doesn’t know who removed the reference to terrorism and al Qaeda.
Which raises the question: How can he be so sure no politics was involved?
And if, as some Democratic members said, the change was made simply “to protect classified information,” then why did the CIA’s unclassified talking points — the ones parroted by UN Ambassador Susan Rice on five national TV shows at the White House’s insistence — contain something entirely different?
Because that version painted Benghazi as an attack “spontaneously inspired by the protests” over an anti-Muslim video.
This is a scenario that Petraeus says he not only knew was wrong, but that he’d privately told Congress — and, reportedly, President Obama — was inaccurate.
So why did Petraeus allow a false version to be made public?
And if Rice knew nothing more about Benghazi than what was in the false talking points — as Obama himself said this week — why was she the administration’s voice?
Beyond the question of misinformation — or deliberate disinformation — lies the critical question of the military response.
As Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said yesterday, Petraeus’ testimony underscored that “clearly the security measures were inadequate.” To say the least.
Which is why Congress needs to create a joint, bipartisan investigating committee that will answer all these questions — up front and in public.
The same way Congress dealt with the Iran-Contra affair back in 1987.
Benghazi, unresolved, will poison American politics for years.
Congress can’t let that happen.