Skip to comments.White House Changed CIA Talking Points (The Truth Comes Out
Posted on 11/19/2012 9:08:11 AM PST by Kaslin
The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early, said chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.).
The CIA talking points on Benghazi initially identified the attackers as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked terrorists but senior administration officials removed the reference, Rogers said on NBCs Meet the Press.
Meanwhile, White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters traveling with the president on Saturday that the White House made only minor changes in the first comments by a White House official on the Benghazi security scandal.
We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment,” Rhodes said on Air Force One en route to Asia. “The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.
Rhodes insisted that the word consulate was changed to diplomatic facility to reflect the fact that the compound was not involved in traditional consular activities.
Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community, he said. So I cant speak to any other edits that may have been made.
Rogers said the talking points were reviewed by a deputies committee of senior officials that is populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed.
Rogers was commenting on closed-door testimony Friday by former CIA Director David Petraeus who revealed the talking points were changed, apparently to play down the terrorist connection. Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), an intelligence committee member, first disclosed this information shortly after the Petraeus hearing.
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in five Sunday talk show interviews used the altered talking points that emphasized falsely that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.
The attack resulted in the death of four Americans including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) also said on Fox News Sunday that Petraeus said the initial talking points were altered and that senior intelligence and security officials did not know who was behind the changes.
At the hearing we had on Thursday and Friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there, including folks from the State Department, the FBI, everybody there was asked, do you know who made these changes? And nobody knew, Chambliss said.
The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the White House. I don’t know whether what they said yesterday is exactly right or not. But, what I do know is that every member of the intelligence community says that references to al Qaeda were removed by somebody and they don’t know who. And references to attacks versus demonstrations were removed by somebody.
Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) disagreed with Rogers and said allegations the White House changed the talking points were false. So there was only one thing that was changed and I’ve checked into this, I believe it to be absolute fact and that was the word consulate was changed to mission, she said on the same program.
That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made and I have checked this out, she said.
But Rogers, a former FBI agent, insisted the White House was behind the change.
What was said and as I conclude the course of that investigation was that at some point those so-called talking points, in other words, the narrative of how we would call this event, went up to what’s called the deputies’ meeting, he said. When asked, there was no one in the professional intelligence community could tell us who changed what. So there goes the disconnect. So the intelligence community said this was a terrorist act.
Rogers comments also bolster statements made by U.S. intelligence officials to the Free Beacon in early October that intelligence indicating an al Qaeda link to the attack was deliberately cut out by senior administration officials.
One intelligence official said the reason for the omission of the information on al Qaeda was that the intelligence contradicted President Barack Obamas statement at the Democratic National Convention weeks earlier that al Qaeda was on the path to defeat.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) agreed on Sunday, saying on Meet the Press that he believes the intelligence indicating an al Qaeda link to the Benghazi attack was removed for political reasons.
I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda-sponsored or -affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden’s dead, we’re safer, Graham said on Meet the Press.
And Susan Rice just did not say it was the results of a mob spawned by a video like Cairo, he said. She actually said on Face the Nation, I want to remind the American people, this president promised to go after bin Laden, refocus on al Qaeda. He got bin Laden, al Qaeda’s been dismantled, and the truth of the matter is nothing could have been further from the truth, and the story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president.
Asked if there was a cover up on Benghazi, Rogers said, Well, this is what I know: I know the narrative was wrong, and the intelligence was right. Now, getting between here and there, I think you have to be careful about making those accusations. I think you should have to prove it. As an old FBI agent, you should prove it first.
Rogers defended the intelligence assessment from the time of the attack as identifying the strike as an act of terrorism.
There were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had, he said. That’s my concern and we need to say hey, we need to figure out how that happened and let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again.
Feinstein said she did not believe there was a cover up.
The Benghazi attack received little attention by major news media outlets prior to Nov. 6. The New York Times carried few stories about the attack and devoted few resources to covering the story in what critics say was an apparent effort to play down a major security failure by the Obama administration.
Rogers said the failure to provide adequate protection for diplomats and intelligence personnel in Benghazi was a catastrophic failure in recognizing that threat posture clearly on that day.
On the sex scandal that led to Petreaus resignation and has also ensnared the current U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen, Rogers said Petraeus did the right thing in stepping down.
A new CIA officer that failed to disclose an extramarital affair would be fired, he said. Why? Because it’s a counterintelligence threat to someone who has very sensitive and classified information, Rogers said.
Rogers also said he is not sure Obama was not informed of the FBI investigation of Petraeus before the Nov. 6 election. The president insisted he did not know until after the election.
Rogers said that the issue needs to be investigated.
Feinstein said she believed the president was kept out of the loop on the Petraeus probe which began with an investigation of cyber harassment of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley.
I spoke to the attorney general, she said. He explained the process that the FBI carried out and there’s a reason for that. And the reason for not disclosing it [to the president] is so that there is no manipulation; that there is an ability to move ahead without any political weighing in on any side.
Dianne Feinstein believes in the Tooth Fairy too.
What a maroon.
My bet is on Valerie Jarrett changing the talking points for Rice. Rice is a direct Cabinet report to Obama, not to Hillary Clinton.
So they cherry-picked the intelligence to suit their political agenda.
Surely there is tape of Senator Obama blasting the Bush administration over this.
0m0slem issued the stand down / death to America order also!
So, let’s pin it on the guy who empties the trash cans in the White House.
Yea, the media will buy that one!
I believe he is the one who gave the order. However, even if it comes out that he did - his worshipers won’t care - they won’t even bat an eye over it and will bow down and kiss his feet anyway.
My son once came to me many years ago when he was just a kid. “Dad, You don’t trust me”.
I told him then, “Son, Trust is earned it isn’t given as a right” “When you lie, you lose that trust”.
Obama has done nothing since day one in office but lie.
He lied to get there.
His life is a lie, his past a lie.
His Birth Certificate is a forged document.
His staff in the White House lie for him,His Press Secretary Jay Carney is the Baghdad Bob of the White House.
We cannot believe anything coming from the White House.
Trust in this Government is gone.
Even the money they print is a lie. It has no intrinsic worth, and one day it will become worthless or nearly so.
Hi Kaslin —
Thank you for posting this.
A few years ago I heard a retired military officer say that the main thing of any mission is to “keep the main thing, the main thing.”
I think you will agree with me that although the change of talking points, and the Petraeus events are interesting and damning to the administration, the main thing is why did we not protect our representatives. Why were we asked to stand down? Why idd we not intervene? Why would a president of the US “sacrifice” a few Americans?
Yes, the talking points memo is important. But it is not the main thing.
Again, thank you for posting this article. Bill Gertz is a true journalist in my book.
“Consulate” versus “Diplomatic Facility”.
“Diplomatic Facility” sounds so nice and benign. Like the farthest thing from a facility where interrogation is perhaps done and where prisoners are housed?
And, by the way, about that Turkish diplomat that Ambassador Stevens was meeting with, why didn’t that happen at the Embassy in Tripoli versus Benghazi, a terrorist sh_t hole on 9/11 no less? Hm?
Half of the people of this country accept his lies,and for nother 4 years there is nothing we can do about it.
There used to be an old saying when a horse was running away.
That the horse had the bit in his teeth.
Obama now has the bit in his teeth.
Meanwhile, WHERE IS HILLARY IN THIS??
....what a bunch of utter bs!
From the article: “Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) disagreed with Rogers and said allegations the White House changed the talking points were false. So there was only one thing that was changed and Ive checked into this, I believe it to be absolute fact and that was the word consulate was changed to mission, she said on the same program.
Thats the only change that anyone in the White House made and I have checked this out, she said.
But Rogers, a former FBI agent, insisted the White House was behind the change.”
I’ll go with Rogers statement. Feinstein is a moving lips Democrat.
Staying far away so she can run for TOTUS in 2016.
IOW Clapper may have done it per Zero's orders. After all, as CIC, Zero is a member of "the intelligence community."
I hate weasel words.
I wonder if its also because she is up to her unshaved armpits in this mess.
obama lied because AMERICANS DIED... IMPEACH NOW... screw the Senate... get on record that he committed treason!
Ping, for your lists.
I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda-sponsored or -affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative weve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Ladens dead, were safer, Graham said on Meet the Press.”
Who was it that said AQ is on the run, dismantled, etc.?
Did it come from the horse’s mouth? Or one of his minions?
Yes - it matters, but.... they will deny they ever said it.
There’s two people in this administration that are staying as far away from this story as they can possibly be.
a) hillary clinton
b) robert muller
Those are the culprits that they’re hiding.
So why did they change it to “diplomatic facility” instead of “consulate”?
The more they ‘explain’ the more bizarre it gets. This MUST be what hillary meant by a willing suspension of disbelief. I have becer seen anything like this in my entire life!!!
They all but named Jarrett. Everybody knows it was Jarrett, as everybody in Washington knows how this WH operates. I do wonder what Donilon's role in this might be. My guess is that he takes his marching orders from Jarrett.
Obama Lied, America Died.
And yet with the media's help the administration is able to ignore it. We haven't yet gotten any complaints about having to "get beyond this distraction so we can do the work the American people sent us to do". It isn't necessary.
Instead of looking into who changed the “talking points’ we should be looking into what was changed. The CIA believed it was a terrorist attack of some type. Some HOW & WHEN did the rioting crowd and the video become information. It was added somewhere between the CIA report and Rice’s comments. Someone or someones had to purposely add the theory. It was not a deletion or omission. They should hang Hillary and Obama for this TREASON.
Where is Ali Ani al Harzi? SILENCE since Nov 4.
U.S. investigators to get access to Benghazi suspect
Tunisian terror suspect denies link to Benghazi attack
Why is Dear Leader not ready to arm Syrian rebels? (Though we have reports of covert gunrunning from Benghazi -> Turkey -> Syria and Sinai?)
Obama not ready to recognize, arm Syrian rebels
By MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press Wed, Nov 14, 2012
Why did Romney suddenly fall silent in the third debate about Benghazi after Dear Leader and “Bad Candy” Crowley called him out on “act of terror” or “act(s) of terror” in the second debate?
Romney Is Half-Right on Syria: the U.S. Should Arm Rebels
Who has made every effort not to testify? Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State.
I think yoou are RIGHT.
They disappeared for a reason and my guess is they were carrying out Obama’s directives and policies in this regard - hence the need to protect them as they know where the bodies are.
Agreeded, Feinstein started out with great indignation and seemed to side with a cover-up theory at first. After some reflection (and probably a verbal bitch slap from the WH) she fell in line with washing her hands and offering "I find no guilt in this man".
My best guess is that he sensed a trap. It's certain that Obambi and his handlers were prepared for that and would have hammered him.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Diane Feinstein is shilling for the admin. She doesn’t want an investigation because she knows where it’s heading: impeachment.
Hillary seems to be planning to become The Woman Without a Country, since it appears that she’s never coming back now. Well, actually, she may touch down on Weds and spend a few days - since congress will be in recess.
Where is Mueller and what is he up to? He’s been extremely silent, and nobody’s even asked him anything so far as I can see.
I think you are prolly correct on this!
Putin’s Line in the Sand
BiBi’s Line in the Sand
Dear Leader’s Line in the Sand
The Pope’s Line in the Sand
WHAT were they REALLY attempting to coverup that was occurring in LIBYA?
Gun running? Psuedo kidnapping plot to trade the blind sheik for the ambassador?
WHAT was the CORE ISSUE that was being hidden???
Related thread....with inaccuracies in the article (Sept 12 report from the Guardian UK):
Captain Obvious will need to remind the Senator that the reason such things ARE disclosed to the senior person is to insure nobody can manipulate the information being provided to the President. By non-disclosure, it allows those between the President and the Director of the CIA to manipulate his reports.
Why hasn't his staff been fired for this manipulation? It takes a real chump to buy that argument promoting non-disclosure.
Report: Mike Rogers Among Names Floated as Potential CIA Directors
I guess he did not take the bait?