From the Wall Street Journal, a summary on the Benghazi congressional hearings.
Last week’s encounter between former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and the House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence may have brought us a bit closer to the truth of how four Americans came to be killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and how their countrymen came to be lied to about it. But the progress toward truth was probably not made in a way that Mr. Morell intended. The encounter on Capitol Hill also made clear that the forum that will take us all the way to the truth must be something other than a congressional hearing.
[…]Critics of the government’s performance on Benghazi have charged that Mr. Morell’s revisions principally although not exclusively involved changing the description of the violence and its perpetrators, and removing the suggestion that they might have had ties to a terrorist organization. These changes, it is argued, enabled Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to promote the discredited and since abandoned narrative that the violence was a reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video produced by a probationer in Los Angeles.
The acting CIA director’s changes to the talking points did indeed enable the blame-it-on-the-video fiction, which served the interest of a president seeking re-election based in part on having put al Qaeda on the run, although in fairness it is not clear that was Mr. Morell’s motive. Thus he edited out a description of the warnings that the CIA had provided to the State Department of earlier terrorist attacks on the British embassy and on the Red Cross that caused them to withdraw their personnel, and a description of an attack that blew a hole in the U.S.’s own installation—events that might have suggested that Sept. 11, 2012, was not an isolated event.
Morell believed “analysts” who are desk employees, and disregarded statements of the station chief, who was on the scene, and in contact with the eyewitnesses:
He substituted “demonstration” for “attack” despite the direct statement by the CIA’s Libya station chief in Tripoli that there was no demonstration; Mr. Morell changed “terrorist” to “extremist.” His explanation is that he relied on the CIA’s analysts, who he said had comprehensive information available to them, rather than on the CIA’s station chief, who relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who arrived soon after the attack started.
The directorate of intelligence functions according to a protocol whose rigidity we more often associate with the military. So analysts whose deductions put them at odds with those on the scene wouldn’t have considered, and apparently didn’t consider, simply ringing up those on the scene and getting their input. To the contrary, analysts deal only with information that comes in the prescribed way. The CIA station chief’s communication to headquarters came in an email and did not get circulated within the intelligence community as it would have if it had been contained in a cable.
There was plenty of information disconfirming his “demonstration” lie:
There was, as it happens, other information available. A private company, Agincourt Solutions, had followed the Twitter, Facebook and other social media in the vicinity of the U.S. installation attacked in Benghazi. The company found no evidence of a “demonstration.” There were video cameras trained on the front gate of the consulate that showed no demonstration. Days before the attack, al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri had been calling for an attack to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda member who was, as his name suggests, a Libyan. And Sept. 11 is a date of highly symbolic value to people who set great store by symbols.
The last two data points were certainly available to the CIA analysts, and the camera feed should have been. But all this was discounted, apparently in favor of their consensus view that the attack at Benghazi had started with a demonstration that drew inspiration from violence inflicted on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo—allegedly as part of a protest against the video.
Both Obama and Clinton blamed the Youtube video for a “demonstration”, and denied that there was a terrorist attack:
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton told the grieving families that the producer of the video would feel the weight of the law. It was one promise they kept: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested in the middle of the night in the glare of TV lights for a probation violation—the only arrest thus far growing out of the Benghazi attack, even though the identity and whereabouts of the principal suspects, one of whom is an alumnus of Guantanamo Bay, have long been known.
The Obama administration blamed the Youtube video in order to win the 2012 election. They were afraid if the real story came out, people would know that they had screwed by underestimating the threat and ignoring the warning signs and the requests for additional security. Democrats can’t do national security – they just give speeches about spending taxpayer money.
- Transcripts show that top U.S. military officials briefed Obama on Benghazi terrorist attack
- Benghazi liar Susan Rice to be appointed National Security Adviser by grateful Obama
- Released e-mails show that State Department edited terrorism out of talking points
- Obama: editing of talking points to cover-up of Benghazi terrorist attack is a “sideshow”
- BBC News covers whistle-blower testimony: “After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll”
- ABC News: State Department scrubbed terrorism details from Benghazi talking points
- What we learned from the Benghazi whistle-blowers
- Whistle-blower: State Department cut counterterrorism experts out of Benghazi decisions
- Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go”
- Benghazi whistle-blower: assets to protect the embassy were available
- Hysterical Hillary Clinton shrieks out her victimhood over Benghazi cover-up
- Benghazi security officials on the ground contradict CIA’s account
- Obama administration refused to engage top counter-terrorism resource for Benghazi
- Classified cable sent on August 16th warned of vulnerability of Benghazi consulate
- Requests for support from Benghazi defenders denied by the Obama administration
- White House told that terrorists took credit for Benghazi attack within two hours
- Unmanned drone observed Benghazi attack, no help sent for 7 hours
- CIA in Libya reported that Benghazi was a terrorist attack in first 24 hours
- Obama’s Watergate: State Department falsifies Obama’s Benghazi cover-up
- Benghazi attack was a massive failure of Obama’s security policy
- Obama justifies censorship by blaming a Youtube clip for a planned terrorist attack
2 thoughts on “Benghazi hearings: CIA director altered talking points from “attack” to “demonstration””
Reblogged this on thewaythetruthandthelife.
Reblogged this on danmillerinpanama and commented:
Since the little people are unable to deal with facts, it is necessary to provide fiction instead. Thus spake the Obama Administration; it seems to work. Besides, who is that Ben Ghazi person anyway? We don’t hear much about him these days. Was he on the lost Malaysian aircraft?