Skip to comments.CBS: CIA talking points for Rice never mentioned terrorism
Posted on 11/16/2012 10:00:59 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
It seems interesting this CBS scoop comes shortly before both the current and former directors of the CIA will testify as to what they know about the terrorist attack on our consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Why, its almost as if someone at the White House or State Department wanted to follow up on Barack Obamas defense of Susan Rice during yesterdays press conference and pre-empt any potential fallout from whatever Mike Morell and David Petraeus have to say today and tomorrow.
Naah. Im sure this is just another in the series of amazing coincidences regarding timing of revelations over the last nine weeks in the Benghazi story.
CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Rice, who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on Face the Nation (video) on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack began spontaneously suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.
Available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault There are indications that extremists participated, read the CIAs talking points.
This probably works better as a defense for Rice than claiming she never said that the attack sprang from a spontaneous demonstration, which CBS rebuts tacitly while Sean Higgins demolishes it in detail for the Washington Examiner. If thats what the CIA told her, and she had no access to any other information, then it does explain why Rice told a false story about what turned out to be a terrorist attack from the very beginning on the anniversary of 9/11, no less.
Why wouldnt she have had access to other information? Because Rice had no operational responsibility for anything other than relations with the United Nations. So why did the White House, as Obama put it yesterday, ask her to go on five talk shows on Sunday to impart this story to the media and the public? That request had to come from Obama himself, and it bypassed other more likely candidates for that assignment such as Tom Donilon, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, or David Petraeus, all of whom had some responsibility for the incident. And heres a related question why didnt those five media outlets raise that very question when the White House offered Rice as a spokesperson for that explanation? Didnt that seem even a little curious especially when the Libyan President was saying exactly the opposite?
Yes,... it is amazing that suddenly... CBS found this....
It’s a no-brainer why the White House trotted Rice out for the Sunday talk-show circuit. Because she was the only one whom they could claim had no knowledge of what had happened to date. Whether she truly was oblivious is doubtful, but this cover-up and pattern of lies was structured very carefully to last through the election.
The people running the government aren’t even on the same planet as the rest of us.
However, he went on to say that someone removed that reference from the report later on, and that he has no idea who did it. He was adamant that it was not done for political reasons, but this doesn't pass the most basic common sense test: if he really doesn't know who removed it, how in the world can he possibly know that it couldn't have been for political reasons?
There are still mostly lies being put out surrounding this entire incident. And sadly, it turns out that Petraeus isn't much more honest and forthright than your typical bureaucrat.
WHERE DID THE 'VIDEO NARRATIVE' COME FROM? WE MUST KNOW WHO CAME UP WITH THAT LIE!!!
I’ll bet the filmmaker knows who started this cover story. That’s probably why he’s jailed for a year. So he doesn’t talk.
And she had the further virtues of being both black and a woman so no one would dare criticize her!
I'd bet that the official that should have been the spokesman that Sunday, Madam Secretary of State, told them where to shove it, so they just grabbed whoever was available and probably had no way to refuse.
"[Petraeus] testimony [on Nov 16] was he told us that from the start it was a terrorist attack. I [Peter King] told him that was not my direct recollection."David Petraeus testimony fails to clear up questions on Benghazi attack - guardian.co.uk - November 16, 2012
I know i posted on here the very day she was speaking that it made no sense she was delivering the message.
Now however it’s easy to see why Obama picked her. He never expected his initial narrative of the video to be questioned so he thought he was getting his soon to be nominee for Sec State same visibility. It makes sense from that viewpoint and no other i can think of. Otherwise he was throwing her under the bus before pushing for her to get a very important promotion.
Just heard on the radio (from cBS news), that McCain said he was was dumbfounded when he asked Petraeaus when did you first discuss Benghazi with the president? and the General replied, I havent.
If true, a huge story.
It would be more shocking if Petraeus didn't try to protect Obama, and Windbag McCain knows that.
Who the F#&@ is minding the store????!!!! This situation would be hilarious is it wasn’t so damn pathetic!
I keep trying to find that statement on line with no success yet. Hopefully soon.
So the prez doesn't do most intel briefings or talk to his CIA chief?
So? She knew just like her anti-American boss knew it wasn’t a video.
Rice got White House talking points.
The input from the CIA, according to Petreaus, was that it was terrorism from an al Qaedalinked group.
The White House edited out those points.
The real question is:
Did the POTUS grant authority to the military to save the 41 Americans in Benghazi using assets and resources stationed outside Libya?
If yes - why did they never arrive?
If no - why not?
Were the former SEALS in Benghazi ever delayed from moving to protect the mission/ambassador?
Were these 41 Americans not worth saving?
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.