Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CBS: “Office of the DNI” cut al-Qaeda and terrorism references from Benghazi talking points
Hotair ^ | 11/20/2012 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 11/20/2012 9:05:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Meet James Clapper --- the latest fall guy for the White House on Benghazi. After last week's hearings in Congress showed that the talking points from the CIA had been changed to eliminate the mention of terrorism, Washington erupted into a whodunit. CBS reports today that the culprit has been found ... sort of:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

 

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack --- with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes. ---

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

“The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to. …

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Note that this report doesn’t pin the blame on Clapper himself. It instead locates the change in Clapper’s “office,” allowing for a rather non-specific assignment that makes almost no sense at all. Are we to believe that a Clapper aide overruled David Petraeus’ assessment of Benghazi? If so, on what basis?

The report also states that the reason for the redaction was because the link to AQ was “too tenuous.” However, the presence of mortars and RPGs, as well as coordinated fire and attack strategies in play, made it clear “almost immediately” to Petraeus and others in the CIA that this was much more than a spontaneous demonstration run amok. That made the YouTube video explanation rather “tenuous” too, no? And yet that stayed in the talking points while terrorism got excised.

This explanation seems even more tenuous than the previous stories coming from the White House. If Petraeus knew “almost immediately” that this was an act of deliberate terrorism and included that in his talking points, then we need an explanation of who in the “office of the DNI” removed that explanation, and why — more than just the “too tenuous” excuse here that turned out to be totally wrong — and whether they got pressured to do so.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 20120911; 20120913; 20120914; alqaeda; benghazi; clapper; dni; jamesclapper; obamaadmin; obamalies; rice; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: twister881

twister881~:” Clapper is the same moron who did not know that Muzzie terrorists had been arrested in the UK, and who also claims the Muslim Brotherhood is a “secular organization.”

When the organization , in this case the “Muslim Brotherhood” wishes to impose Sharia (religious doctrine) law on a country (Egypt), you can’t say that they are a secular organization .

“Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.” from Mr. Erdogan( of Turkey)


41 posted on 11/20/2012 11:48:44 AM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Every federal bureaucracy in this administration
has a DNI- “Do Not Investigate” department.


42 posted on 11/20/2012 11:53:16 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patriotspride
The SoS said as much early on, in an attempt to give the administration cover, saying the Libyan authorities did not give permission for our military to fly into Libyan airspace. The implication that Zero's administration couldn't do anything without permission is so ludicrous that the idiots at the State Department just might have been thinking that way! I haven't seen evidence that this angle of exploration of DOS incompetence was adequately pursued.

Added to that is the incompetence of telegraphing (as with Geraldo's sand drawing) to the likely conspirators within the Libyan government what our desires were and where the US might draw its criteria lines for action. For as little as this reasoning was exposed by the media, we might have otherwise come to know that certain advisors counseled non interference in the affairs of the "friendly" Libyans, once their denial of permission was received, or even that the mighty Zero administration was cowed by a threat from some Libyan general that we better not do that "or else" (read: "Your very own MANPADS will take out any CBA'ed aircraft"), or even that the SoS might have given her personal guarantee to advise Zero that he thusly refrain.

HF

43 posted on 11/20/2012 2:59:10 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: holden

The SoS said as much early on, in an attempt to give the administration cover, saying the Libyan authorities did not give permission for our military to fly into Libyan airspace. The implication that Zero’s administration couldn’t do anything without permission is so ludicrous that the idiots at the State Department just might have been thinking that way! I haven’t seen evidence that this angle of exploration of DOS incompetence was adequately pursued.
Added to that is the incompetence of telegraphing (as with Geraldo’s sand drawing) to the likely conspirators within the Libyan government what our desires were and where the US might draw its criteria lines for action. For as little as this reasoning was exposed by the media, we might have otherwise come to know that certain advisors counseled non interference in the affairs of the “friendly” Libyans, once their denial of permission was received, or even that the mighty Zero administration was cowed by a threat from some Libyan general that we better not do that “or else” (read: “Your very own MANPADS will take out any CBA’ed aircraft”), or even that the SoS might have given her personal guarantee to advise Zero that he thusly refrain.

HF


Thanks. I’m glad someone else remembers that hillary request. I recall hearing it very quickly on Fox one time, and never again.

To me , it’s key to what we were really willing to do to ensure “ no one is left behind” and the real meaning of

” as soon as I heard about this I ordered etc” from Obama

The MSM could care less about this


44 posted on 11/21/2012 9:39:42 AM PST by patriotspride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Another example of Obama administration's deliberate minimalization of the threat :

MARCH 2012 : (LEON PANETTA CLAIMS "NOT-SO-FRIENDLY FIRE" INCIDENTS IN AFGHANISTAN ARE NOT PART OF A BROADER PATTERN ----LIAR OR IDIOT?) In December 2009, our commander in chief went to West Point and proclaimed that he would withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2014. Since then, he has proudly emphasized that "We are on a course to end this war responsibly."Now U.S. and NATO troops and loyal Afghan soldiers and police officers are reaping the bitter harvest of the seeds that Barack Obama planted with those words. In March, after an insider attack that killed two British commandos, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the assaults by individuals wearing Afghan police or military uniforms weren't part of "any kind of broad pattern of activity." That perception has been altered by events on the ground in Afghanistan. ..(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ------Bitter Harvest (Oliver North), Creators Syndicate ^ | August 17, 2012 | Oliver North , Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:47:42 PM by jazusamo

Goes along with the Obama admin claim that the the Ft Hood massacre was not an act of terrorism, as well as the recruiting center shootings in Arkansas, which denied those troops and their families their due recognition in the WOT in spite of those attacks sharing AQAP figure Anqar al Awlaki, as did 9/11, the Toronto 18, the missing Somali cases, and undybomber Abdul Mutallab.

45 posted on 11/23/2012 7:19:39 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Thanks


46 posted on 11/23/2012 7:34:11 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis; ColdOne

More lying by omission on the part of the Obama admin:

The letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suggests the administration waited until Daqduq was in Iraqi custody before filing murder, terrorism and other charges. It also states the administration intentionally kept information from Capitol Hill lawmakers, who learned about the purported charges and Daqduq’s ordered release through New York Times stories. “Eight pages of charges ... appears to indicate that either the administration was purposefully withholding information from Congress or it had not done the due diligence required to file charges,” states the letter signed by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee’s ranking GOP lawmaker,... Hill GOP wants answers on Hezbollah leader tied to soldiers killings, set for release , foxnews.com ^ | 5/17/12 | foxnews , Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:43:22 PM · by ColdOne http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/hill-gop-wants-answers-on-hezbollah-leader-tied-to-soldiers-killings-set-for/?test=latestnews


47 posted on 11/23/2012 7:38:44 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson