May 5, 2013

“It is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.” [Darleen Click]

chrisstevensposterMost honest, transparent administration EVAH!

Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

And obscure they most certainly did!

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy.

Compare the versions of the talking points:


If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.

Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.

And when it is the President himself not only citing one’s rather lame YouTube video, but blaming it for the death of an American Ambassador and others, is it any wonder that Mark Basseley Youssef is behind bars and Obama was returned to White House?

Posted by Darleen @ 10:29am

Tags: , , ,

Comments (58)

  1. the CIA boys had to alter the talking points for so their no-fun fascist paymasters would let them get back to giving each other handjobs in the safe house while Syria brewed up a nice frothy head of slaughter

  2. When we heard — just after the attacks at Benghazi — that some thirty-seven or so Americans were speedily evacuated from the compounds there, some bound for Ramstein Airbase and the hospital there for treatment of injuries sustained in the attacks, others for destinations untold (and still untold), and yet saw the ObaZma administration tell lie after lie about the incidents in the days and weeks thereafter, we knew then that these evacuees would eventually tell their own stories. We’re waiting.

    Yet here we are with a “list” of “whistleblowers” to testify come Wednesday, a list which includes none of those “evacuees”, people we have not yet heard speak. Shit. This thing is hardly even started as an account of events, and the incuriousity displayed by the media couldn’t speak louder.

  3. Obazm’s bestest buddy among the world leaders (the World!) speaks:

    If God permits, we will see this butcher, this murderer receive his judgement in this world … and we will praise [God] for it,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

    Barry should listen up, wot?

  4. What difference at this point does it make that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when we know that she is uncaring for those who work for her and would be equally uncaring about the American people as a possible future POTUS.

  5. Greetings:

    If I were to have a chance to ask a question or too about the Benghazi fiasco, they would be these”

    1) What’s the current information about the “alleged” rape of our ambassador?

    2) What’s the current information on those who supposedly resigned their positions in the

    As painful as the first question might be for the ambassador’s family, I think that the issue needs to be resolved as well as why it seems to be of such disinterest to other members of this administration.

    As to the second question, my point is that duplicity is the mother’s milk of this administration and that it continues long after the rewriting of the intelligence assessments.

  6. Suleimani’s involvement in the meeting with Nasrallah was significant. He has been the spearhead of Iranian military activism in the Middle East. In January 2012, he declared that the Islamic Republic controlled “one way or another” Iraq and South Lebanon. He now appeared to be prepared to extend Iran’s control to all of Syria,” Shapira said.

  7. And Ha! The incoherence grows thick on the ground, approaching hardening into concrete: Israel’s aggression shows support for Al-Qaeda, Syrian official says

  8. Caroline Glick, Dershowitz and Tragedy:

    There are two main reasons that many leftists who are viscerally supportive of Israel have difficulty understanding and defending the Jewish state today. First, the storyline about Israel is deeply distorted.

    It ain’t just Israel.

  9. There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words … Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

    What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists”

    More evisceration than alteration.

  10. CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

    “The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”
    Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.
    Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents “would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success.”

    Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

  11. Thinking about the unthinkable? (Like, y’know, getting caught in his evil lies — not stuff like nuclear weapons exchanges, silly.) That’s where Barry Obazm specializes. He knows what to do. And that is “Don’t”.

    Think, that is.

  12. Yet here we are with a “list” of “whistleblowers” to testify come Wednesday, a list which includes none of those “evacuees”, people we have not yet heard speak. Shit. This thing is hardly even started as an account of events, and the incuriousity displayed by the media couldn’t speak louder.

    Surely you are mistaken, sdferr. All the important people have had their say. What could these mere employees possibly add?

  13. why are people so sure that the “betrayed” State department flunky wouldn’t have lied his whore ass off with all the others to protect food stamps campaign and his whore bitch secretary of state’s presidential ambitions

    cause people are retarded

  14. *food stamp’s* campaign I mean

  15. the “betrayed” State department flunky

    Would be who now? Has a name? I only ask since there happen to be thousands of them from among whom to choose.

  16. oh. excuse me his name is Flunky McHazardpay you may have known him at Yale


  17. of the Amherst Hazardpays

  18. vegan? drove a lexus?

    check your friendslist

  19. you may have known him at Yale

    What the fuck are you talking about?

  20. all of your better state department flunkies are Ivy everyone knows that

  21. I asked a simple question and I get back some nonsense about “you may have known him at Yale”. I’ve never been to Yale, not even merely to visit, let alone attend the place. But carry on with your insulting horseshit, by all means.

  22. He’s having one of his episodes again.

  23. i was already done before you asked your simple question

    but keep on maundering about poor betrayed state department whores by all means

  24. I said exactly zero about anyone “betrayed”, nor maundered of anyone’s state. These are your constructs alone and don’t belong to me.

  25. I’m sorry then

    I misinterpreted the pronoun them where you said “thousands of them from among whom to choose” I think then I got my feelings hurt cause you you were all like what the fuck are you talking about when I was just making my constructs alone about how state department flunkies are mostly very dependable and homogeneous ivy leaguers who are given their positions precisely cause of they’ve demonstrated a willingness and even an eagerness to play ball when its time to circle the wagons

  26. when *it’s* time to circle the wagons I mean

  27. I’m not going to apologize for thinking you had a particular person in mind when you first characterized whatever the hell you had a mind to characterize by writing “the” betrayed State Department flunky. Y’know, cause “the” sticks to “which”, and there are many people we haven’t heard from. I’ll be damned if I’ll presume to know them without knowing them.

  28. no I apologize

    I thought people would understand that in the post where there’s a big picture of a guy labeled “betrayed” that when I was talking about a “betrayed” flunky people would know i was talking about the guy in the picture

    I should have been more clear

  29. I confess I don’t generally pay much attention to cartoons.

    So you don’t think the three State employees set to testify on Wednesday can be potentially characterized this way (“why are people so sure?”)? Good to hear, explicitly, if that’s what you mean to tell. Since your indirection wouldn’t have made that determination possible otherwise.

  30. the three state department employees are mostly notable for their anomalousness – there are obviously scores if not hundreds what have something to contribute to Wednesday’s discussion what haven’t come forward

    they might could be the only 3 honorable state department employees

    but just as likely they have their own agendas

    you just never can tell with these ones

    like I said I’m of the firm conviction that these ones don’t get put into state department jobs if there hasn’t been a determination made that they would toe the line if it came to it

  31. griefer

    Whether or not Chris Stevens would have lied his “whore ass” off if he had survived doesn’t at all connect to whether or not he was betrayed. He could have been one of fag-hag Hillary’s best pom-pom cheerleaders. Indeed, the more loyal he might have been, the more disgusting that Obama then Hillary refused to answer the 3 am call, stood by his coffin in faux sympathy while blaming some Coptic schmoe then trying to shove the facts down the memory hole (“what difference does it make?” “It was long ago.”)

    Chris Stevens died so Obama could be elected and succeeded by Hillary.

  32. i agree he got the short end of the flunky stick

  33. Chris Stevens died and the CIA lied for so Obama could be elected and succeeded by Hillary

  34. In an ordered society, the only question may be what’s the “line” to toe. It would seem there are limits beyond which none may go alone, or go solely for their own purposes. So in general terms, no one would expect those who “represent” a nation abroad in foreign lands would act solely on their own behalf. But then, if they’re not “representing” the immediate administration holding office, which in its turn, “represents” the nation, where, exactly, is the line drawn? And by what, or who?

    That’s the point at which resigning comes into play, alongside which, explanations of that murky “where” and “what”, explanations given by those forced to choose where the line is drawn. Occasional reminders of that sort have been sorely lacking lately.

  35. I can’t believe you couldn’t care less that these men have information about the killings in Benghazi. They have come forward and been identified prior to their testimony for their own safety, for crying out loud. People in high places with pertinent information tend to disappear, get fired or commit suicide when around this administration. The fact that the entire command structure of the military has been retired and replaced would be a giant clue-bat to anyone paying attention.

  36. yes I agree you can’t have people running about willy nilly

    it’s the same as a lot of those creepy corporate jobs where work/life balance means something very different than what most of us think

    but the more nakedly election-driven this benghazi fiasco is understood to be the more anomalous our three songbirds will appear I think

  37. The überstaunchyfootypajamaed one only ever seems to go full-metal-idiot on Darleen’s posts.

    Kind of like thor did with Karl.

  38. One thing that the left here in the US has been good at is having rewards, jobs, positions, honors, always there to be bestowed upon those who destroyed their future careers in service to the “cause”/Party. Once this is noticed then there is always suspicion since the normal rules don’t really apply to some and they can do things that normal people would not.

    That is what I take from ‘feets postings. That one side has the advantage that their people can just burn themselves to the ground because the Party will have them reborn Phoenix like once they have accomplished their mission.

    Like all those “blue dogs” who voted in the end for Obamacare and then lost but got nice positions in the left’s NGO/EDU/Foundations complex.

  39. i did not go full metal idiot we had a misunderstanding is all cause of sometimes I don’t make the commentings good to where I communicate what i want to say

  40. the hot airs have a piece today related to that Mr. geoff

  41. This by Bill Kristol on the administration and Syria applies to the administration on just about every issue except those like abortion and gun control where they have real lines they have drawn.

    If the Obama administration is, as Churchill put it in November 1936, “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent,” then it should have the decency to keep silent rather than engage in such pitiable and contemptible posturing.

  42. I think food stamp is resolute in very much wanting to set a precedent for where people are massacred while the US stands by impotently while making half-assed statements about how frightfully appalling it all is

    he’s still Daddy Soros’s little boy

  43. The überstaunchyfootypajamaed one only ever seems to go full-metal-idiot on Darleen’s posts.

    It’s an extremely awkward attempt at a show of affection. Next thing you know, he’ll be dipping her ponytail in the inkwell… or engaging in some other anecdotal boy-behavior from a million years ago.

  44. busted

  45. That is not really what I was getting at. More like Sandy Berger.

    Berger currently serves on the Advisory Board of the National Security Network, and he is Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group. He is also an Advisory Board member for the Partnership for a Secure America.

    Groups like those three make the question come to mind, who/what funds these things? They seem to exist to provide nice sinecures for the faithful servants of an evil ideology.

  46. I think the Democracy Alliance is mostly in charge now

  47. sometimes I don’t make the commentings good to where I communicate what i want to say

    Try speaking adult English.


    Oh, right. Forgot who I was talking to.

  48. you’re just making pretend like you forgot so you can say mean stuff

    I got your number mister

  49. They are only doing an average of 20 million per year. The Joyce Foundation does 30 million per and Tides is pushing close to 100 million per year. Those are just three groups out of hundreds, thousands that throw funds into the progressive cause every year.

    Then there are also all those that get funding from the Mid-east oil money thrown around ever since the 70s when the money started flowing fast into their coffers. Hell they bought up a good portion of the hard left black organizers and their organizations back in those days. I’d bet the funded the more white socialist student groups too.

    Just throwing out “Democracy Alliance” and offering up Petraeus as somehow covering this hidden world isn’t a way to point to it but more like a “limited hangout.”

    Part of Obama’s problems are that the whole structure has become more and more expensive to fund. He upped the pay expectations when he did the payoffs for Obamacare and now everyone wants their little piece made bigger too. The payoff inflation spiral is whirling around faster as it climbs, like Icarus, ever upward.

  50. a lot of corporate boards are dominated by fascists as well

    but I think it’s all been more or less decentralized like al Qaeda

    the Democracy Alliance aimed to change that – that’s why I pointed to them ones

  51. One of my favorite diplomats has a few questions on Benghazi.

    –What was that facility meant to do?
    –Why was it so poorly protected?
    –Why did the Ambassador go there on September 11 of all dates?
    –What was he doing there on that date that was so important?
    –Why did he meet a Turkish diplomat there of all places on that of all dates?
    –Why was political hack Susan Rice sent out to do the Administration’s cover up?
    –Why was it so hard for the media to “discover”who wrote Rice’s talking points?
    –Why were the people present during the attack not made available for the press or others?
    –Where was Hillary Clinton throughout this mess?
    –Where was the President?
    –What was the President told? What did he say?

    That’s a good start.

  52. Being on corporate boards is one of the payoffs. A chunk of change and prestige for doing very little. Being on foundation boards is where you get power to decide where money flows.

  53. When Hillary asks, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” she is not only being defensive, but momentarily sincere: Why do you wingnut truth fetishists persecute me? Four people are dead, and I mouthed the platitudes. I mouthed them, okay? And yes, I lied about it, but I had to, because I was afraid crazy wingnut truth fetishists would characterize what happened there as my fault, because other people kept pestering me about security there and I blew it off, and I suborned a bunch of perjury to cover it up. So what? They’re dead. Get over it, people! I should be President.

    I find that attitude exotic and intriguing, from a clinical standpoint, but is that poster agitproppy, or what?

  54. “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    If it didn’t matter, why did you lie about it?

  55. i did not go full metal idiot we had a misunderstanding is all cause of sometimes I don’t make the commentings good to where I communicate what i want to say

    Some thinking before commenting might be in order next time. Plus, it’d shock people into having some regard for what you have to say, maybe.

    It’s worth a try, in my opinion.

  56. Woods and Doherty were unavailable for comment.

  57. A Conspiracy of Dunces