Skip to comments.CIA Knew al-Qaeda Involved In Benghazi Attack From The ‘Get-Go’
Posted on 04/02/2014 4:53:49 PM PDT by Starman417
So today we find out from Mike Morell, the Deputy CIA Director at the time of the Benghazi attacks, that he crafted the talking points which were ultimately used by Susan Rice on talk shows based on what a few CIA analysts believed had happened instead of the on the ground accounts from the CIA Station Chief.
The idiocy is mind-boggling. So mind-boggling you have to wonder if he isn't just covering his ass along with the ass of the administration.
As part of Morell's testimony on Wednesday, the former acting and deputy CIA director acknowledged that he overruled the guidance of the top CIA officer in Libya at the time. That official told Morell the attack was not an "escalation of protests," but Morell said he had to weigh that against analysts who concluded the opposite. He ultimately went with the analysts -- whose assessment later turned out to be flawed -- saying the chief of station's report was not "compelling" and was based on loose evidence.
The account has many close to this investigation fuming. One operator watching the hearing told Fox News: "He doesn't have any idea what happened that night. Why is he speculating? He wouldn't have to speculate if he talked to the people in Libya that night, or others who were watching."
Another said Morell either still has no idea what happened that night, or he is covering for someone. "Human intelligence takes precedence over everything else and he had no better intelligence than multiple reports from credible sources coming from the ground that night," one operator said.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Bring the analysts before the committee.
Let’s hear what they have to say.
The idiocy is mind-boggling. So mind-boggling you have to wonder if he isn’t just covering his ass along with the ass of the administration.
There is nothing about this mac daddy administration, or those associated with it, that is believable. NOTHING, NADA, NIL.
There's an awful lot of ass covering going on here - from this guy, to Hillary, to Obummer and including this damn committee. There is no good reason why it took so long to get this testimony as well as the witness testimony.
And why the hell wasn't Hitlery put under oath when she appeared? It's all theatre and it pisses me off to no end.
Happened in sept. @ months b4 elections. I’d blame the GOP
Morrell said that he relied on the CIA ‘analysts’ (who were actually State Dept Intelligence Analysts working for Hillary) and PRESS REPORTS.
Ahhhhh......They knew from the start that Al Qaeda was involved. So, let’s say our President and Secretary Of State were supplying assistance to these attackers, they would have been aiding and abetting the enemies of The United States Of America. Isn’t that called “treason”? And if our President and Secretary Of State went on television to tell the citizens of The United States that this attack came because of some dopey video when they knew it was Al Qaeda, wouldn’t that have been aiding and abetting the enemies of The United States? Wouldn’t this also be treason?
There is a huge cover-up for Hillary “What difference does it make” Clinton regarding Benghazi.
Oh I agree - the parties on both sides are covering for each other - there is no sane reason why this has taken this long to find out what happened and why. At the end of the day, we never will - everything else is theatre and filler.
8:00 PM - Hillary Clinton calls Gregory Hicks.
10:00 PM - WH: Obama Called Hillary at 10PM on Night of Benghazi Attack. February 20, 2013
When I was watching Morell’s contrived comments yesterday, I kept thinking, this guy reminds me of something.....what is it? Oh yeah.......
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
I watched Morells testimony yesterday. It is exactly as she said.
Listen to AB Stoddard at 4:30
See the transcript here and the video
A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE HILL: I was really surprised at how completely confused, beyond inconsistent, he was. It’s really beyond disconcerting. He couldn’t get to contrition because he countered himself so many times, it’s unbelievable. He basically said there was so much information coming in at the beginning that I thought that it was both a terrorist attack and a response to a protest. And they’re not mutually exclusive, and I’ve always thought they were both.
Meanwhile, he says he only listened to people who told him it was a protest. In the CIA station chief’s report or anyone else that was coming in
BAIER: From the ground.
STODDARD: — from the ground saying he was getting e-mails and other press reports, including local, saying that it was an attack, he says weren’t compelling and often they were refuted. So he made his own system of how he would compile the information and assess it and never said we’re getting reports of both. And he also at the same time said “I really wish, chairman, that two years ago in November of 2012, I had just told you I didn’t take out Al Qaeda from the points, but I had taken out other things.” This is a deputy CIA director.
I can't think of anything the CIA has protected us from... does anyone here know of anything?
I'm really starting to despise the people who put this cabal in power; welfare mamas, white and gay guilters, Muslims and communists..
Why do these people get away with lying?
These are huge lies.
The waters are muddied and no on is held accountable.
People died. National security was compromised.
Doesn’t anyone care?
You are 100% correct; good find!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.