Posted on 05/05/2013 8:20:21 PM PDT by smoothsailing
May 5, 2013
Accountability is not a word that the Clinton clan believes in; as the Weekly Standard documents how the CIA talking points were reduced to mush and blame was redirected away from Hillary Clinton and toward a guy who uploaded a YouTube trailer.
After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman…
This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”
The talking points were full of facts. Troubling facts.
The obvious question here was who was to blame for not foreseeing attacks this inevitable. Not to mention the whole Jihad and Sharia thing was bound to upset Muslims.
So the snipping began…
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.”
Shouldn’t the State Department be critiqued for not paying attention to those warnings? Maybe, but the CIA was headed up by a guy purged for an affair while State was headed up by the future Democratic presidential nominee who would be instrumental to Obama 2012.
So the cover up had to begin.
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. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.”
Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
And the cover up moved all the way up to the White House, which also worried about the buck stopping too close to the Oval Office.
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.
A man was locked up to provide a cover story for Hillary Clinton. An Islamic terrorist attack was used to go after “Islamophobes”.
Four Americans died. A political prisoner was added to the rolls. The truth about a terrorist attack was covered up. All in support of Obama’s 2012 campaign and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
The MSM has resisted investigating Benghazi to shield Clinton more than Obama.
The woman loves pantsuits...I’m thinking a bright orange one, or maybe go retro with black and white strips and accessorize with an ankle manacle with ball and chain.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
It troubles me that someone who (apparently) has less of an alleged conscience than Edward (I decline to use the familiar "Teddy") Kennedy wants to be our president.
.
bttt
Before the 2012 election they were protecting Obama, but since then the effort has been more about protecting Clinton for 2016.
BTTT!
It’s the voters that let them get away with it.
This juicy little tidbit from the article lays a hot steaming one right at 0's doorstep.
Course, it's one of many, but we can still hope that this time the stink just might be too strong for the media--and hopefully the public--to ignore.
I think your observation is an accurate one. Her level of narcissism is at least on a par with Obama’s.
Because of my prior posts regarding Syria I cannot be taken seriously. Will agree though in this regard ... though bill and hillary will refuse to take the total fall even though hillary said it was her fault for the lack of security, hilly want to run in 2016. It will perhaps become worse before becoming better though the cracks are forming in the dam and the water cannot be held back forever (imho). bill and hilly have to make a decision. The Chicago Mob verses the Arkansas Mob. The script is written.
Is it racist to say obie best learn how to tapdance?
bill and hill ARE the Chicago mob. What they ain’t is muslims...although bill does make a fortune off them.
Well maybe. Think North Mafia verses Dixie Mafia.
Is Barack's foreign policy erectile dysfunction smacking voters in the face yet?
The LSM will protect her yet again.
Our only hope in 2016 is that the Republican party doesn't run another loser.
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.