From the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes:
Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.
As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.
The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time.
[…]
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.
On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”
It was a preview of the administration’s defense of its claims on Benghazi. After pushing the intelligence community to revise its talking points to fit the administration’s preferred narrative, administration officials would point fingers at the intelligence community when parts of that narrative were shown to be misleading or simply untrue.
And at times, members of the intelligence community appeared eager to help. On September 28, a statement from ODNI seemed designed to quiet the growing furor over the administration’s explanations of Benghazi. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”
The statement continued: “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.”
The statement strongly implies that the information about al Qaeda-linked terrorists was new, a revision of the initial assessment. But it wasn’t. Indeed, the original assessment stated, without qualification, “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”
The statement from the ODNI came not from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, but from his spokesman, Shawn Turner. When the statement was released, current and former intelligence officials told The Weekly Standard that they found the statement itself odd and the fact that it didn’t come from Clapper stranger still. Clapper was traveling when he was first shown a draft of the statement to go out under his name. It is not an accident that it didn’t.
The revelations about exactly how the talking points were written, revised, and then embellished come amid renewed scrutiny of the administration’s handling of Benghazi. Fox News spoke to a Special Ops soldier last week who raised new questions about what happened during the attack, and the State Department’s inspector general acknowledged that the office would be investigating the production of the Administrative Review Board report on the attacks because of concerns that investigators did not speak to a broad spectrum of individuals with knowledge of the attack and its aftermath. On May 8, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on the matter. And Republicans in Congress have asked the administration to release all of the emails, something that would further clarify how the changes came about.
What’s left to say, really? In a sane republic, in a time when government actually mattered and wasn’t a celebrity game show that we all were forced to suffer through, this is the kind of thing that would galvanize the opposing party, if not the people themselves, to rise up in anger, bringing down an Administration and leading to arrests and jail time.
But we are in the age of Ameritopia, and there’s shit on the cable TV. Plus, an heroic openly-gay bench player is lending his rainbow aura to our hateful, backwards union, healing us with his impressive height and his brave choice of sexual partners.
So.
43-page report here.
(h/t sdferr, geoff b)
whaaa? I had to read this twice.
so even though bin laden is dead al Qaeda is still slaughtering Americans willy nilly?
this is not what i have been led to believe
Southern Californians with time on their hands can mount a campaign akin to the “Free Mumia Political Prisoner” campaign (since that one hasn’t gone so well this last score of years): the “Free Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Political Prisoner Skeevy-Scum” campaign — marching out front of whatever detention center in which he happens to rot his days away. At least they’ll have a truth of political prisonerhood going for them this time.
Does that ever happen with Democrats?
I suppose I’ll have to read the report, but there’s no mention of Obama anywhere in that summary.
Was Obama not notified immediately when they pieced together it was an AQ attack while the attack was still in progress? And what was his role in the creation & revision of the talking points – were they revised at his request?
Either he was involved or he wasn’t. Neither of these options make Obama look good, it’s only difference between incompetence and mendacity.
oh leave whitey obama alone you rightwingfascists
Juan Williams has assured us that there is no cover up. So there.
Whats the point in trying to drag Obama into this? Everybody knows this happened a long time ago and everybody also knows that he doesnt make any decisions about anything …so what difference does it make..now?.
Juan’s meta-message is that he expects us to believe that the rest of the media will have no more interest in this story than he does, which, for his part is nil. And in this he’s likely largely going to be proved correct.
Cover up, they’ll ask? There’s no cover up. There’s only absence of attention. And you can’t make us pay attention, no matter how hard you try.
Juan also assures us that if a Republican president were in office, the media would have taken the exact same posture as they have with
the messiahObama.To repreat: “the original assessment stated, without qualification, ‘we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.’”
This is what floors me.
Because at any other time in American history, before Iraq, when the Democrats lost what little remained of the whits they retained in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, the Administration would have played up the al Qaeda angle —politics ends at the waters’ shore, rally ’round the flag and all that. Bill Clinton would have promised to level every asprin factory from the Pillars of Hercules to the Suez. Hell, Al Gore would have stopped waging war on global warming long enough to get his kinetic action on. And Mitt Romney? Hell’s bells, he would have suspended his campaign and endorsed Obama, for the sake of national unity.
And these assclowns (or are they?), having spent four years trying to look Presidential without ever quite succeeding (though they’ve got third world kleptocrat down pat), ran in the other direction.
And as much as I want to believe it’s because they utter incompetents, I can’t help but suspect that a genuine foreign policy/global security type issue was the last thing they want on their plate, no matter how serious, because that would only get in the way of their fundamentally transforming the nation on the domestic front.
Tell Vlady I’ll have more flexibility indeed.
Since 4 pm EDT was 9 pm Benghazi and the attack came shortly before 9 pm the State Dept was sending out an alert within minutes of the attack. And since the news of the attack came from the TOC at the “Consulate” which also alerted DOD, CIA and the “Annex” then we can say that by 4:05 pm the White House Operations Center knew that there was an attack on the “Consulate” and that the US ambassador was in danger.
That this news led to them working the political ass covering rather than sending out a “Bat-signal” for all assets that could get there to report in and start whatever they had to do to get to Benghazi ASAP, is close to, if not in fact treasonable.
This is what it should have looked like at the WH.
That this news led to them working the political ass covering rather than sending out a “Bat-signal” for all assets that could get there to report in and start whatever they had to do to get to Benghazi ASAP, is close to, if not in fact treasonable.
Spot on. It’s a crying shame that no one with clout will come right out and say it.
There is not accountability at the federal level. We are no longer a Nation of laws. We are a nation of narrative.
too optimistic :
proggtardia uber alles
So, where is Carter Ham these days?
The saying used to be, “Satire doesn’t stand a chance.”
Now it’s 2013 and snark can’t compete with reality anymore either.
*** The United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, CNN reported on Friday, citing two unnamed US officials.
CNN quoted the officials as saying Israel most likely conducted the strike “in the Thursday-Friday time frame” and that Israel’s warplanes did not enter Syrian airspace.
It said the officials did not believe Israel had targeted a chemical weapons facility.
There was no immediate confirmation. A White House spokeswoman referred questions on the CNN report to the Israeli government.
The NBC news network cited US officials who said Israel launched airstrikes against Syria on Friday and that Israel’s primary target was a shipment of weapons headed for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
According to the NBC report, a senior US official said the airstrikes were thought to be related to “delivery systems for chemical weapons.” ***
This is all very very depressing.
i never really got into the whole benghazi thing and I seriously doubt it’s gonna move the dial even with trey trent t-bone gowdy mctwangy twang riding shotgun
Here’s some cheerful news from John A. Steakley:
(via Glenn Reynolds)
So put that in your pipes and smoke it, (Temple, Texas) coppers!
Kansas replies to AG Holder.
Kansas replies to AG Holder.
Gov. Brownback’s reply is good, but Secretary Kobach’s is worthy of framing. Holder simplistic, incorrect, curious, abusive, and a gun trafficker. I might have chucked in a couple more adjectives, but I’m uncouth like that.
– There are no adjectives worthy of describing the naked power grab intentions of the fourth Reich.
How true.
Chad Pergram lists some of those who will be testifying come Wednesday’s hearing before the House Committee:
Hicks and Thompson are new voices we have not heard. Nordstrom testified at an earlier hearing in Oct 2012, saying metaphorically: “the Taliban is on the inside” of the State department decision-making regarding lax security in Benghazi prior to the attacks.
Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched
You have got to be kidding me, Roger. Bumbles wouldn’t be found guilty by this Senate if caught red-handed starring in a gay snuff flick.
Reid would find a way to refuse to hold the trial — and Roberts would rule that since impeachment isn’t a tax no trial is required.
The Senate that would try him but still acquit him is one headed by someone like, say, a Dole, a Lott, a Frist, a McConnell…
– As long as Bumblefuck has the poodle skirt mediots he’s safe. The Left will flood the airwaves/net/print with endless hozanahs for their dear leader and protect him at all costs.
– Should the press ever begin to crack then he might take the gas.
We don’t have a foreign policy.
We have a short series of two posh, snooty, highly overrated, nerds famed for how dull, deceitful, and thick headed they are, a self deluded community organizer hack with a clueless cult of personality, a tragic misapprehension that “not being Bush” is by itself a foreign policy, and lame poorly researched gestures like “ipod full of speeches”, get rid of the Churchill bust”, ” making Bibi wait”, ” overcharge button”, “greater flexibility after the election”, “no place for blasphemers in the future”, “crossed red lines with no response”,