The Benghazi Scandal Grows (Long article)

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version—produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers—was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy—al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points.

The CIA’s talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security—including State, Defense, and the CIA—as well as senior White House national security staffers.

Your very welcome. :-)

One more part of hearing testimony about the stand-down orders ....(and Hillary’s call to Hicks.and Obama’s call to Hicks).
~~~~~~~~~~

ISSA: I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Desantis.

DESANTIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think this is an important hearing. It really does make all the difference to me to know whether we did all we could to aid our brethren who are in harm’s way. I think it’s part of our military ethos. I think it’s part of our national character.

Mr. Hicks, I just — just to go back and get this — you know, even though you believed help was needed, there was a soft unit — special operations unit ordered to stand down, correct?

HICKS: Yes.

DESANTIS: And even though you thought air support was needed, there was no air support sent?

HICKS: No air support was sent.

DESANTIS: So, no A.C. 130 gun ships, no fighter planes, right?

HICKS: A.C. 130 gun ships were never mentioned to me. Only fighter planes out of Aviano.

DESANTIS: And, in fact, there was no request for air space other than the UAV request to the Libyan government, right?.

HICKS: Yes, and that preceded the attack, if I’m not mistaken.

DESANTIS: So, when the order to stand down was given, who issued that order? Were you told? Did Lieutenant Colonel Gibson tell you who was ultimately responsible for issuing that order?

HICKS: He did not identify the person.

DESANTIS: OK, so you don’t know if it was the combatant commander?

HICKS: I — I do not know.

DESANTIS: Or whether it was the secretary of Defense or the president, correct?

HICKS: I have no idea.

DESANTIS: And have you, since this incident has happened and you’ve been interviewed, have you been enlightened as to who was ultimately responsible for issuing the stand down order?

HICKS: I think you — that the right person to pose that question to is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.

DESANTIS: When you spoke with Secretary Clinton at 2:00 A.M., did she express support for giving military assistance to those folks in Benghazi? I.e., did she say that she would request such support from either the secretary of Defense or the president of the United States?

HICKS: We actually didn’t discuss that issue. At the time, we were focused on trying to find, and hopefully rescue, Ambassador Stephens. That was the primary purpose of our discussion. The secondary purpose was to talk about what we were going to do in Tripoli in order to enhance our security there.

DESANTIS: So as part of that discussion, though, you informed her that you guys in Benghazi were, in fact, under attack, correct?

HICKS: The attack in Benghazi — she was aware of the attacks, but were in phase three. The attacks had already — the first two attacks had been completed, it was a — and there was a lull in Benghazi at the time.

So — and again, the focus was on finding Ambassador Stephens, and what the second — or the Tripoli response team was going to do.

We had at that time no expectation that there would be subsequent attacks at — at our annex in Benghazi.

DESANTIS: So you — it was under your — you viewed it as secured at that point?

HICKS: No, we knew the situation was in flux.

DESANTIS: OK.

When you spoke to the president following the attack on the phone, did he say anything about deploying assets, whether — why assets were not deployed?

HICKS: I believe I spoke to him on September 17th or September 18th, so...

DESANTIS: Right, after the attack. I know this was several days later.

Did he say anything, or was it just to commend you about your service?

HICKS: It was just a call to thank me for service...

DESANTIS: OK.

Well...

HICKS: ... and praise the whole team.

DESANTIS: I appreciate that. I think that this has been a good hearing. I think that there are still questions remaining. I think we need to know who actually gave the order to stand down. I’d like to know why you’ve been demoted, why they — the secretary’s chief of staff called you and spoke to you the way she did.

And so with that, I’ll yield...

ISSA: Would the gentleman yield to...

DESANTIS: The Chairman? Thank you, committee chairman.

ISSA: Always the right answer, thank you.

Mr. Hicks, 2:00 in the morning, the secretary of state calls you personally. Not a common call.

HICKS: No, sir.

ISSA: Did she ask you about the cause of the attack? Did she ask you about the cause of the attack? Did she ask about videos? Did she ask about anything at all that would have allowed you to answer the question of how Benghazi came to be attacked, as far as you knew?

HICKS: I don’t recall that being part of the conversation.

ISSA: So she wasn’t interested in the cause of the attack, and this was the only time you talked directly to the secretary, where you could have told her or not told her about the cause of the attack?

HICKS: It was the — yes, that was the only time when I could have. But again, I had already reported that the attack was — had commenced and that twitter feeds were asserting that Ansar Sharia was responsible for the attack.

ISSA: You didn’t have that discussion with her only because it was assumed that, since you had already reported that the cause of the attack was essentially Islamic extremists, some of them linked to al- Qaida?

HICKS: Yes.

ISSA: Thank you. I thank the gentleman.

DESANTIS (?): OK. The gentleman — does the gentleman yield back?

The gentleman yields back.

We now probably go to a second round, starting with Mr. Jordan.

I have not posted in quite some time....just disgusted frankly.

In 2013, I said of his re-election that we are all Benghazi now. BHO has no respect for the life of any American. As for HRC, her disdain for the military was known long ago. While BO has been destroying us domestically, she has tried to destroy us on the global front.

When we look back at our political landscape, HRC has had her nose in everything since 1991. She had her nose in the downfall of the American president in 1974. Enough!!!! Just say NO to 2016!

As for their sheep, they best wake up and realize that they are all Benghazi now, they are Ft. Hood, they are Boston. And they are Newton...because it meets the agenda. Sometimes it takes the loss of a life dear to them in these tragedies in order for to them to discover the truth about their shepherds. A few in Boston have had their “watershed” moment. Still, many will continue their blind following as they are cut from the same anti American cloth as their supposed leaders.

As for us who know better....We will NOT be Benghazi!!!
And the media must hear us loud and clear. That is where the pressure needs to be. The media is our biggest clear and present danger next to academia. The media foisted this disaster upon us. The media is cut from the same anti-American cloth as the leaders they chose for us.

We can keep pressuring the media to report the truth. The scam. The corruption. The deceit. The malice. The lust for power to continue the downfall of everyting decent about America. When not pressuring the media, we can educate others. Tell them to do their homework. Tell them to turn off Hollywood, American Idol, sports, etc....tell them they are Benghazi!!!! They are no longer immune from a terrorist threat. If faced in a terror attack will their rescuers be told to stand down for someone’s political gain?

Most of all, pray and seek God’s mercy upon our land and His people. Ultimately He is our only real hope.

Beautifully said. ----------------

And the media must hear us loud and clear. That is where the pressure needs to be. The media is our biggest clear and present danger next to academia. The media foisted this disaster upon us. The media is cut from the same anti-American cloth as the leaders they chose for us. ------------------

Those in the media need to take this to heart. I know many at the top are servants of "The Father of Lies"... but aren't there a few who are still uncorrupted? Sherly Atkinson has bravely reported the truth on both Fast and Furious and Benghazi. Surely there are others? What about boards of directors of the major media outlets. Are all the major stockholders flaming liberals? We have got to do something about the incessant lying going on, and maybe in one swoop bring about the downfall of a couple of these. I believe that if just one of the major media decided to start doing the right thing, they would have people flocking to them because it would expose the corruption at the others. But if they do, then they as much as admit they've been in on it this whole time.

If one board of directors at CBS, NBC or ABC were to fire the top executive at their network and make an announcement that they have become aware that the news has not been accurately reported and that they intend to correct the problem, and then let it be known to journalists that you had BETTER find out the truth and report on it.... Just one is all it would take to begin unraveling the web of lies and deception that has been going on for years.

I'm sure that's why libs are in such a tizzy about the Koch brothers buying out LA Times.

Well, I'm still open to any suggestions on actions we can take to get this more and more in front of people, and not just allow to stand the lies the ABCNBCPRAVDA decide to use as their latest spin control...

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.