CBS: CIA talking points for Rice never mentioned terrorism

posted at 1:01 pm on November 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

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, it’s almost as if someone at the White House or State Department wanted to follow up on Barack Obama’s defense of Susan Rice during yesterday’s press conference and pre-empt any potential fallout from whatever Mike Morell and David Petraeus have to say today and tomorrow.

Naah.  I’m 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 CIA’s 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 that’s 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 wouldn’t 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 here’s a related question — why didn’t those five media outlets raise that very question when the “White House” offered Rice as a spokesperson for that explanation?  Didn’t that seem even a little curious – especially when the Libyan President was saying exactly the opposite?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Cut out the middle woman….

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

The ink is still wet on those talking points from two months ago.

Socratease on November 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

What would a stand alone B. Obama look like?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 2:18 PM

it is irrelevant unless you are a leftist media type…Rice is Leverage to get barry to start telling the truth…but i know that cbs is not interested in that

r keller on November 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

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?

Probably because she was ignorant of what was going on. Then she could tell any lies they fed her and claim ignorance later if the truth came out, and Obama and Clinton wouldn’t have to put their credibility on the line. I.e., she was a useful idiot.

Socratease on November 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

It was the white house 3 blocks down on 53rd street

faraway on November 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM

BHO-> Sending Rice was “Crazy like a fox”.

Medbob on November 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Two reasons why aperson would dive under the bus .
1 colossal stupidity
2 blind ambition

Lucano on November 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Somebody we never hear much about is Tom Donilon…What role did he play in all of this..? He’s the National Security Adviser…?

d1carter on November 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Good guy, bad guy.

“Ms Jarrett, my partner is in the other hearing room with the House Committee on Homeland Security , seems Pres. Obama is telling them that he thinks you without his knowledge or the CIA’s knowledge gave all these talking points to Amb. Rice”

“You may need to rethink your position on this.”

“Mr. Pres. as you should know by now Ms Jarrett has told the House Intelligence Committee about your telling her to misdirect the country on Bengazie to cover up the transfer of highly classificed to the locals who were to then transfer them to Syria.”

“You may need a good atty.”

Then the Good Guy and the Bad Guy may get some info out of these cult of liars.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM

But Pres. Obama called it; the morning following the attack; in the Rose Garden. It was terrorism. Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

Oh, wait. That link has been conveniently scrubbed from the WaPo website.

But there’s still this article about Crowley’s assist to the Pres. during the 2nd debate.

locomotivebreath1901 on November 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM

SURPRISE! It seems that o-bow-mao is caught LYING! First he never says it is a terror attack. (the rose garden speech did not refer to Libya as a terror attack) Then in the debate he says it was a terror attack. (check the records, repeat that Candy!) Then he says yesterday that the White House sent Rice out and she said 5 times, 5 Sunday shows that is was the video, not a terror attack. Oh, by the way, it is terrible to fault Rice for lying to the American public!—Yeah we will go after you o-bow-mao, a lying P O S!

Lew in Colorado on November 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Most likely Tom Donilon is the one with the bright idea to send the Fast and Furious O’riley guy to Iraq so that he could not be forced to talk.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 2:34 PM

B. Obama’s going to be so busy with new lies he may not have time enough to sign all the dole checks.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM

If you look at the information obtained by CBS News, you will also see that a video is never mentioned. It mentions a “spontaneous” riot in Cairo that “spilled into Benghazi”. If the CIA made it a point to mention the video, you know CBS would have mentioned it. So, where did the video reference come from? That’s where Obama is to blame and Rice is nothing but a person who will lie/cover-up for this Administration.

djaymick on November 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I smell taqiyya talking points.

Opinionator on November 15, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Dear Leader is determined to make the CIA the fall guys on Benghazi, and by extension Petraeus.

Coincidentally Petraeus could lose his pension if someone cough*ChicagoWay*cough reveals that his affair may have started while he was still officially a military leader.

farsighted on November 15, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Tricky Dicky and his people were honest and angelic compared to Obama and his gang of Chicago of pinkos.

farsighted on November 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM

YES! Eventually even teflon wears out. McCain seems to be growing a pair. But I believe Boehner is on that take. Somebody please get his skirt off the top of his head and send him down the road!
Life! We need some life from the American people!

onomo on November 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Make smoke where their is fire.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com

On the Khawam connection.

We have free speech and cavitemptor too.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM

This makes even less sense since Obama called it terrorism from day 1. Louder, Candayyyy!

Their lies even lie against their lies and 51% of voters don’t give a f*&k.

kcluva on November 15, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You know what? We oughta make the Rice confirmation hearings the Benghazi hearings the media and Democrats seem hell-bent on denying us.

Sekhmet on November 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM

This is very reminiscent of when Colin Powell made 90% of the case for the Iraqi invasion about WMDs.

Those involved in compiling the intel said that WMDs were NOT the focus of the intel and were a small component and not *the* over-riding justification for invasion.

Youtube video: Esay out.
Ready to go WMDs: Easy out.

Funny though how the Bush Regime got ripped to shreds for failing to find the WMDs which were apparently the whole point of that adventure.

And yet the Barky Regime has not been Code Pinked for it’s made up story about some obscure crappy youtube video.

CorporatePiggy on November 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Again, do any of you ever stop to think that there might have been a reason, perhaps even a “legitimate” one, that the CIA might have wanted to and set out to downplay this facility, who worked there, and what they were engaged in there?

I mean any reason at all that the CIA might try to put out a cover story? I know that’s so entirely out of character for them and all the things they engage in are all on the up and up and not geo-politically sensitive at all as it is, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Ever stopped to think that it might not be, “Barack Obama knowingly just let those people die, knew about it, and did nothing”. And might instead be, “The CIA lost a base of operations in a sensitive area where they were engaged in activities that it might be best to keep your mouth shut about. So here, link it to Cairo, the militants sent in “fake” protestors chanting about it anyway. Say as little as possible about who ELSE was there and what they were engaged in, and do not release any classified or high security clearance level information.”

Anyone?

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Really? Ok, I’ll bite…

Let’s just say you’re on the right track. Just how amateurish a leader will you put up with? A video? That nobody saw or most of the ME had never even heard of? That’s your misdirection?

This has nothing to do with misdirection away from clandestine activities, which for the right reasons most support (unless it’s a GOP admin). It has everything to do with the attack and activities occurring there not fitting the Dear Leader’s meme. But reaction to some stupid video did.

This administration is all about appearances and memes. If it doesn’t fit then their message to the masses is “it didn’t happen that way, it happened that way”. No matter how implausible the excuse or who dies.

That’s the real uproar. Lying over deaths of people they put in harms way and not having the personal integrity to own up to it. People like that or not even worth the effort to spit on.

SteveInRTP on November 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Pardon my grammar and misspellings… this whole thing has me pissed off

SteveInRTP on November 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Again, do any of you ever stop to think that there might have been a reason, perhaps even a “legitimate” one, that the CIA might have wanted to and set out to downplay this facility, who worked there, and what they were engaged in there?

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Whatever it is that they were engaged in there, they made stupid mistakes and people were killed because of that and now it is public, or, well, parts of it anyways. So they were the ones who botched it to begin with, so are you surprised now that people want some of the truth at least, and are not going with their pathetic cover up story? If CIA or whatever entity/agency were so darn good at their illicit operations, or whatever it was that they were doing there, they should have never been caught off guard, so they might want to downplay this facility now, but it’s too late, isn’t it, after an ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed. problem is nobody believes their official story now. And I mean NOBODY.

jimver on November 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM

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?

Plausible deny-ability if it blew up in their faces. But only if you didn’t look too closely.

And the MSM doesn’t LOOK, they do as they’re told.

GarandFan on November 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

It’s always frustrating when , as it must,the air begins to leak out of your patched together conspiracies.

plewis on November 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Dear Leader is determined to make the CIA the fall guys on Benghazi, and by extension Petraeus.

Coincidentally Petraeus could lose his pension if someone cough*ChicagoWay*cough reveals that his affair may have started while he was still officially a military leader.

farsighted on November 15, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Hard to prove unless Paula kept a dress in a safe box :)….as for the pension, hmmm, hard to believe that someone like Petraeus would die poor and wouldn’t find thousands of consultancy positions the next day, or he can start his own business…he does ‘t really need their stupid pension…

jimver on November 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Why are we calling them “CIA talking points”? They were White House talking points. The whole point of this is to blame the CIA. We shouldn’t be helping them.

forest on November 15, 2012 at 5:33 PM

According to Obama during the second debate, he himself declared it was an act of terrorism on September the 12th in the Rose Garden. Did he forget to tell Rice?

essequam on November 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM

just heard on wolfies show….the talking points that petraeus had did not match susan rice and wondered WHO gave her those ‘cia’ talking points…

hmmmmmmm

a little doctoring by the wh, yeah?

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

No one begrudges the CIA their covert ops, but when an ambassador gets sucked into the mess, you clearly have a major malfunctioning operation on your hands.

can_con on November 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM

forest on November 15, 2012 at 5:33 PM

EXACTAMUNDO

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM

It’s always frustrating when , as it must,the air begins to leak out of your patched together conspiracies.

plewis on November 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Heh. Kirsten Powers on the rampage.

a capella on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM

GarandFan on November 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

ding ding ding lapdogs of the president

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Anyone?

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I think you are demonstrating too much common sense to be welcome around here in the future, pal.

Start packing your bags.

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM

What would a stand alone B. Obama look like?

Thinner than a TOTUS stand.

Another Drew on November 15, 2012 at 6:31 PM

CBS: CIA talking points for Rice never mentioned terrorism

That would seem to be the problem here.

chewmeister on November 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Susan Rice has told some incredible lies, here’s just a few of them:

1) “The evidence indicates that Benghazi is reconstituting it’s nuclear weapons program … Benghazi has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

MASSIVE LIE!

2) “The British government has learned that Benghazi recently sought significant quanities of uranium in Africa.”

HUGE LIE!

3) “We believe Benghazi has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

UNBELIEVABLE LIE!

4) “We have also discovered through intelligence that Benghazi has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Benghazi is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.”

WHO COMES UP WITH THIS CRAP?

5)”Our conservative estimate is that Benghazi today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.”

HOW ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH THIS?!

6) “We know where Benghazi’s WMD are. They’re in the area around Benghazi and Benghazi and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

THESE PEOPLE ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

7) “Yes, we found the biological laboratory in Benghazi which the UN prohibited.”

OH MY GOD!!!!

We need to impeach these people now before they use these outrageous lies to invade some country and we lose thousands of our own soldiers for no reason at all.

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

pre-empt any potential fallout from whatever Mike Morell and David Petraeus have to say today and tomorrow.

I would be astounded, although very pleased, if Petraeus starts telling the truth at this late date.

BTW, for anyone who has not yet seen this -

Douglas Macgregor (retired Army colonel and author of “Breaking the Phalanx): “Petraeus is a remarkable piece of fiction created and promoted by neocons in government, the media and academia, How does an officer with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert Storm become a division CDR in 2003, man who for 35 years shamelessly reinforced whatever dumb idea his superior advanced regardless of its impact on soldiers, let alone the nation, a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp, military assistant and executive officer to four stars get so far?

How does the same man who balked at closing with and destroying the enemy in 2003 in front of Baghdad agree to sacrifice more than a thousand American lives and destroy thousands of others installing Iranian national power in Baghdad with a surge that many in and out of uniform warned against? Then, how does this same man repeat the self-defeating tactics one more time in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Petraeus was always a useful fool in the Leninist sense for his political superiors — Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Gates. And that is precisely how history will judge him.”

VorDaj on November 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

CBS protecting Obama and Rice? Did anyone expect anything different? NBC will surely follow as will ABC. Fox News left looking like naysayers and antagonists.
I lived to see America’s decline. I am sorry for my kids.

FireBlogger on November 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Nice fallacious argument.

Weak.

You really don’t want the truth about Benghazi…now that is the TRUTH …

and if the truth proves the failure of Obama you’re just spin it away…more truth.

CW on November 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Nice fallacious argument.

Weak.

CW on November 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Argument? Looks more like troll bait.

farsighted on November 15, 2012 at 7:23 PM

CW on November 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You’re dead wrong, we need the truth to come out so we can hold this administration accountable for their crimes.

The first thing we need to do is hold a press conference complaining about the lack of information coming from this administration.

The best time to do it would be the same time there’s a classified briefing where said information is being presented.

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Obama knew that the attacks were going to occur.

There is a breaking story coming from Fox News right now! Obama received a PDB on August 6th entitled “Benghazi determined to Strike US”. Of course, the administration is trying to downplay this information as historical in nature, but they can’t run away from the contents of the brief.

Impeach!

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Susan Rice was never anything but an incompetent, unqualified affirmative action pick. On top of that, she is a lying, corrupt one as well. The woman is a joke.

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Despite his fundamental dishonesty, every once in a while the mask of Mr. Slick slips. The use of the expression talking points to describe what should be intelligence reports is one such instance. Another occurred yesterday when Obama described Susan Rice’s blatantly false narrative as a presentation.

Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 8:10 PM

This is going to blow up tomorrow

CNN: PETRAEUS TO TESTIFY HE KNEW LIBYA WAS TERRORISM ‘ALMOST IMMEDIATELY’

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2012/11/15/CNN-Petraeus-To-Testify-He-Knew-Libya-Was-Terrorism-Almost-Immediately

Conservative4ev on November 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Despite his fundamental dishonesty, every once in a while the mask of Mr. Slick slips. The use of the expression talking points to describe what should be intelligence reports is one such instance. Another occurred yesterday when Obama described Susan Rice’s blatantly false narrative as a presentation.
Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Excellent points.

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 8:12 PM

What if;

The White House, FBI & attorney general blackmailed DP (the affair w/Paula Broadwell)into testifying on 9/14 to congress that a video caused the incident in Bengazi. Then DP grew a pair went to Libya and found out first hand the facts of 9/11. He got so pissed, went to the white house and told them he was going rogue after the election (testify the truth to congress). The white house then trying to discredit DP, release the sex scandel info.

Now both sides will soon play their final hands, DP will tell the truth and the white house will blame the CIA.

My hope is if I’m right that DP will fire the first shot in the future impeachment of obama!

Having people killed in Libya so his political strategy wouldn’t be harmed!

Danielvito on November 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM

…I hope they are all lying…and not just incompetent!

KOOLAID2 on November 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM

i still say they knew …day one…moment one…
so yes they did lie…and continue to do so…
told rice to lie….
to cover what you ask….
OBL is dead adn i saved the world,,,DNC conv speech…and
CIA black site…which a nobel prize winner
out lawed in 2009 and besides since the Arab spring
we wont be needing all that spy stuffs…
…and thirdly…..to win the election..

going2mars on November 15, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Despite his fundamental dishonesty, every once in a while the mask of Mr. Slick slips. The use of the expression talking points to describe what should be intelligence reports is one such instance. Another occurred yesterday when Obama described Susan Rice’s blatantly false narrative as a presentation.

Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Wow, I think you just said a mouthful, worthy of some serious elaboration. Are you game?

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2012/11/15/CNN-Petraeus-To-Testify-He-Knew-Libya-Was-Terrorism-Almost-Immediately

Conservative4ev on November 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

WooHoooooooo!!!

What we all know, now confirmed.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Benghazi or fiscal cliff, it’s all the same to Obama. As long as he’s not held to blame, it’s all good. But he must be made to understand, that there are costs. Payment is coming, because the threats and bullying no longer work. Obama’s living nightmare is soon to begin. I hope the country can handle this.

flackcatcher on November 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM

tomorrow is DPs huge chance to restore some
small bit of Honor to his roll in all this..
will he tell the truth…??

going2mars on November 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Fast and Furious Gun Running. To Mexico

HUGE VERY VERY SPEEDY AND SEEDY MAD DOG CRAZY GUN RUNNING. To Syria.

CIA/CIC would seem to not want any one to know that they were doing HUGE AND SEEDY MAD DOG CRAZY GUN RUNNING TO PEOPLE WHO JUST MIGHT USE THE STUFF TO SHOOT AND KILL THE JEWS NEXT DOOR.

another

BRIGHT SHINNING LIE

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Maybe Ambassador Stephens can shine some light on tha.., hey,WAIT A MINUTE!!?!!

S. D. on November 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM

isnt benghazi almost a 1000 miles from syria..??
gun storage….transportation…shipping …maybe..
but running a gun …would require you be be
a little closer than a thousand miles….wouldnt it ??
im asking…im not a runner so i wouldnt know..

going2mars on November 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM

This government, and sadly the country, has lost its moral foundation and is crumbling rapidly. They may end up spinning this to their favor and shut the R opposition up but the judgment they will bring upon this nation is frightening. The world is going to hell in a a handbasket in the middle east and all Obama, Axelrod and Jarrett care about is CYA and their power click. We will be hit and hit hard and won’t know where it came from. The idiots in places like Philadelphia who voted 19,000 to 0 in their wards better enjoy their Obamaphones & food stamps quickly because they likely won’t be able to very shortly. God have mercy on our once great Republic.

wepeople on November 15, 2012 at 9:32 PM

offer a reward for anyone in those philly towns
$5000 if you can prove you voted for mitt….
the rats will come out of the woodwork then….
free big screen tv if you can prove you voted for mitt…!!!

going2mars on November 15, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Investors Business Daily has an editorial re why Susan Rice would be a travesty as SoS. She was ineffectual at the UN, missing critical meetings and speaking out many, many months ago on important issues. She is a FAIL on many levels. She was used as a dummy to parrot lines on the squawk shows, and she was not the pertinent person to speak out with credibility on the Benghazi attack.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111512-633682-obama-defends-susan-rice-on-benghazi.htm?p=full

Scope out the details on her poor performance.

onlineanalyst on November 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Since when does the CIA issue “talking points”?

Brennan noted in her “CBS This Morning” report that Rice is also a member of President Obama’s cabinet, and thus privy to his daily intelligence briefings, which may have provided further information or context on the Benghazi assault prior to her television appearance the following morning. The details of the cabinet intelligence briefings are not known.

Rice is not a member of the cabinet although I believe Obama has accorded her cabinet rank. Are all members of the cabinet privy to the daily intelligence briefings? Surely they don’t all have the requisite security clearance.

SukieTawdry on November 15, 2012 at 10:31 PM

It’s strange that Romney was right on this, without any hooks into the intelligence community at all.

In fact, I’m proud to say that I reached the identical conclusion (that this was a terrorist attack related more to 9/11 than to any putative movie) within a few minutes of hearing of the intensity and nature of the attacks. And I’m no foreign policy Einstein either.

So why did the Einsteins of our State Department conclude anything other than what the facial evidence concluded?

In every intelligence analysis, the finished product rests upon the evidence — the data collected by the many disciplines of surveillance. How could anyone, in hind sight, looking at the data we know know existed in those first hours, come to any other conclusion than that this was an attack expressly upon our Ambassador?

Not even the late news of possible prisoners changes that. Even the simplest non-military person would have viewed the primary objective to be the annex and not the consulate in that case — yet the consulate was attacked first — and the annex attacked only in hindsight after the Americans at the consulate retreated there. So the prisoners were not the target of the attack.

unclesmrgol on November 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Simple, it’s easy to let it be a random terrorist attack on a target of opportunity. No one would care about the reason for the attack or even what was destroyed if the doofus in chief hadn’t tried so hard to cover it up. How hard would it have been to say “The investigation is on going, but at the current point it appears to have been an attack by groups tied to Al Qeada who took advantage of an opportunity provided by the riots in Cairo.”

Not hard at all…unless you didn’t want to acknowledge that killing bin laden didn’t help (like W told us), and that people in his administration were to incompetent to help.

Fighton03 on November 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM

This is going to blow up tomorrow

CNN: PETRAEUS TO TESTIFY HE KNEW LIBYA WAS TERRORISM ‘ALMOST IMMEDIATELY’

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2012/11/15/CNN-Petraeus-To-Testify-He-Knew-Libya-Was-Terrorism-Almost-Immediately

Conservative4ev on November 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I caught a little bit of the Hannity rerun. King and a rep from NV were on and talked about the testimony they heard from the CIA.

The original info the CIA submitted did say it was a terrorist attack. The points Rice gave were altered. The CIA said they didn’t know by whom.

Both reps thought that when Obama went to the UN and blamed the video he had to have known the truth by that time.

—-

So this means Petraeus lied originally, and IMO Obama had to have given orders that the talking points be altered. Who else would have the authority to make that kind of decision?

INC on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Anyone?

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Not something they’d keep from the President.

First of all, the CIA is not going to provide talking points which sound like the ones we just heard. An intelligence report has two components — the evidence accumulated by various assets, and an analysis of that evidence, assigning weights to the various components — including an overarching opinion by the lead analyst.

I can believe that these “talking points” might have been valid for about the first hour of the attack, but not any point thereafter.

It’s pretty obvious to me that the Cairo Embassy attack itself was brought on by a junior diplomat thinking that agreement with the views and demands of the protesters would somehow dissuade them from violence — when such violence would naturally erupt from the US Government’s inability to immediately curtail the free speech rights of its citizens.

unclesmrgol on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 AM

During the debates Obama lied and said he initially claimed he told the American people he knew it was a terrorist attack immediately in his Rose Garden address.

Why would Rice not repeat what Obama claims he told the American people?

Why was she not aware of what Obama had just said about the Libyan attack being an act of terrorism?

Why would she go backward to a discredited story about the “Muslim video” being the cause of the attack?

Because Obama never said it was a terrorist attack, and then lied that he did, to the delight of Candy Crowley?

Or because they’re all lying, and can’t keep their laters of lies straight any more?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

laters of lies = layers of later lies

(Sorry, but this palimsest of prevarication is hard to keep track of much less write coherently about.)

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 2:06 AM

During the debates Obama lied and said he initially claimed he told the American people he knew it was a terrorist attack immediately in his Rose Garden address.

Why would Rice not repeat what Obama claims he told the American people?

Why was she not aware of what Obama had just said about the Libyan attack being an act of terrorism?

Why would she go backward to a discredited story about the “Muslim video” being the cause of the attack?

Because Obama never said it was a terrorist attack, and then lied that he did, to the delight of Candy Crowley?

Or because they’re all lying, and can’t keep their laters of lies straight any more?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

The simplest way to put it imo is to say that 0dumba’s MO about Benghazi has been to be duplicitous, as many manipulative and cowardly lawyers are wont to do.

He clearly did not want to label the attacks as terrorist ones (his avoidance when presented the easy chance to do so on “The View”) except when he considered it beneficial for him to do so (his debate with Mitt.)

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 3:16 AM

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/15/sen-saxby-chambliss-gives-insight-into-closed-door-benghazi-briefing-terrorist-attack-crystal-clear-on-day-1/

When Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss emerged from today’s closed-door sessions for lawmakers on the events in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, Fox News cameras were waiting. Among the insight that Chambliss was willing to share was that those involved knew immediately that the assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex was a premeditated terrorist attack.

On Fox News: Sen. Chambliss said “There will be an open hearing for the public so the public can see it.”—
Connie Powers (@Lynx60C) November 15, 2012

So, if it was obvious from Day 1 that the attack didn’t arise from a “spontaneous” protest over a YouTube video, how does that explain Amb. Susan Rice’s many Sunday morning appearances repeating that theory?

Chambliss “what Susan Rice said is exactly what Obama told her to say….”—
Diane (@flores8047) November 15, 2012

INC on November 16, 2012 at 3:39 AM

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

The simplest way to put it imo is to say that 0dumba’s MO about Benghazi has been to be duplicitous, as many manipulative and cowardly lawyers are wont to do.

He clearly did not want to label the attacks as terrorist ones (his avoidance when presented the easy chance to do so on “The View”) except when he considered it beneficial for him to do so (his debate with Mitt.)

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Barry’s next lie will be to claim that he was lying to deceive the terrorists and make catching them easier.

Folks… it was what the intelligence people call ‘strategic misdirection’ to keep the enemy guessing. I’m sorry I had to involve Ms. Rice in it, but she is entirely blameless. We could not let the terrorists know we were on to them so fast. We were letting them play out the line so that we can haul in more of them.”

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

Was David Petraeus as great a general as the write-ups of his downfall routinely claim? This is a provocative question that I will begin to answer with another question: Did America prevail in the Iraq War? I suspect few would say “yes” and believe it, which is no reflection on the valor and sacrifice of the American and allied troops who fought there. On the contrary, it was the vaunted strategy of the two-step Petraeus “surge” that was the blueprint of failure.

While U.S. troops carried out Part One successfully by fighting to establish basic security, the “trust” and “political reconciliation” that such security was supposed to trigger within Iraqi society never materialized in Part Two. Meanwhile, the “Sunni awakening” lasted only as long as the U.S. payroll for Sunni fighters did.

Today, Iraq is more an ally of Iran than the United States (while dollars keep flowing to Baghdad). This failure is one of imagination as much as strategy. But having blocked rational analysis of Islam from entering into military plans for the Islamic world, the Bush administration effectively blinded itself and undermined its own war-making capacity. In this knowledge vacuum, David Petraeus’ see-no-Islam counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine would fill but not satisfy the void.

The basis of COIN is “population protection” — Iraqi populations, Afghan populations — over “force protection.” Or, as lead author David Petraeus wrote in the 2007 Counterinsurgency Field Manual: “Ultimate success in COIN is gained by protecting the populace, not the COIN force.” (“COIN force” families must have loved that.) Further, the Petraeus COIN manual tells us: “The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk can be accepted.” “Less force” and “more risk” translate into highly restrictive rules of engagement.

More risk accepted by whom? By U.S. forces. Thus we see how, at least in the eyes of senior commanders, we get the few, the proud, the sacrificial lambs. And sacrificed to what? A theory.

The Petraeus COIN manual continues: “Soldiers and Marines may also have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people.” As Petraeus wrote in a COIN “guidance” to troops in 2010 upon assuming command in Afghanistan: “The people are the center of gravity. Only by providing them security and earning their trust and confidence can the Afghan government and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) prevail.” That was a theory, too. Now, after two long COIN wars, we know it was wrong.

COIN doctrine approaches war from an ivory tower, a place where such theories thrive untested and without hurting anyone. On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the results have been catastrophic. Tens of thousands of young Americans answered their country’s call and were told to accept more “risk” and less “protection.” Many lost lives, limbs and pieces of their brains as a result of serving under a military command structure and government in thrall to a leftist ideology that argues, in defiance of human history, that cultures, beliefs and peoples are all the same, or want to be.

Attributing such losses to Petraeus’ see-no-Islam COIN is no exaggeration. In his 2010 COIN guidance, Petraeus told troops: “Walk. Stop by, don’t drive by. Patrol on foot whenever possible and engage the population.” As the Los Angeles Times reported last year, “The counterinsurgency tactic that is sending U.S. soldiers out on foot patrols among the Afghan people, rather than riding in armored vehicles, has contributed to a dramatic increase in arm and leg amputations, genital injuries and the loss of multiple limbs following blast injuries.”

Indeed, the military has had to devise a new category of injury — “dismounted complex blast injury” — while military medicine has had to pioneer, for example, new modes of “aggressive pain management at the POI (point of injury)” and “phallic reconstruction surgery.”

But not even such COIN sacrifices have won the “trust” of the Islamic world. On the contrary, we have seen spiraling rates of murder by our Muslim “partners” — camouflaged by the phrase “green on blue” killings. COIN commanders, ever mindful of winning (appeasing) “hearts and minds,” blame not the Islamic imperatives of jihad but rather summer heat, Ramadan fasting and the “cultural insensitivity” of the murder victims themselves. Such is the shameful paralysis induced by COIN, whose manual teaches: “Arguably, the decisive battle is for the people’s minds. … While security is essential to setting the stage for overall progress, lasting victory comes from a vibrant economy, political participation and restored hope.”

Notice the assumption that something called “overall progress” will just naturally follow “security.” Another theory. It didn’t happen in Iraq. It hasn’t happened in Afghanistan. Since nothing succeeds like failure, the doctrine’s leading general was rewarded with the directorship of the CIA.

There is more at work here than a foundationally flawed strategy. In its drive to win Islamic hearts and minds, COIN doctrine has become an engine of Islamization inside the U.S. military. To win a Muslim population’s “trust,” U.S. troops are taught deference to Islam — to revere the Quran; not to spit toward Mecca (thousands of miles away); and to condone such un- or anti-Western practices as religious supremacism, misogyny, polygamy, pederasty and cruelty to dogs. Our military has even permitted Islamic law to trump the First Amendment to further COIN goals, as when ISAF commander Petraeus publicly condemned an American citizen for exercising his lawful right to freedom of speech to burn a Quran.

This explains why the reports that CIA director David Petraeus went before the House Intelligence Committee in September and blamed a YouTube Muhammad video for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sounded so familiar. Whatever his motivation, it was all too easy for Petraeus to make free speech the scapegoat for Islamic violence. But so it goes in COIN-world, where jihad and Shariah (Islamic law) are off the table and the First Amendment is always to blame.

If there is a lesson here, it is simple: A leader who will betray the First Amendment will betray anything.

VorDaj on November 16, 2012 at 5:22 AM

What does “the demonstrations were inspired by the US Embassy in Cairo” mean? Were the demonstrations inspired by the riot at the Cario embassy or by the embassy’s apology about the video or by what? The statement sounds like someone threw something together quickly and didn’t bother proofreading.

Nomas on November 16, 2012 at 6:54 AM

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.
Obama did not want to go into that UN meeting shortly after 9/11/12 with the specter of a terrorist attack casting a cloud over it. Not with Morsi giving a critcal speech that validated the “Arab Spring”. He simply COULD NOT acknowledge that a terrorist attack happened. Fell back on the youtube video to keep FOREIGN dignitaries placated. He did not appreciated the blowback he’d get from US side. A VERY bad miscalculation.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Or because they’re all lying, and can’t keep their laters of lies straight any more?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

and NO ONE in the lsm will call them out on their contradictions….

infuriating…

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 7:16 AM

Don’t worry, Colonel West and Mia Love will get to the bottom of the presidents lies when they get to the hill in January.

greataunty on November 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

When is a peaceful protest not a peaceful protest but something else? When you bring rock launchers. I don’t think anyone really needs to depend on the intelligence community to figure that one out.

TturnP on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

We need to impeach these people now before they use these outrageous lies to invade some country and we lose thousands of our own soldiers for no reason at all.

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

You have a point. However, I don’t think a President can be impeached twice. Even though all of these general talking points were first made by him, I think Bill Clinton’s been through enough.

But your post was very cute. Just ignorant. Oh, and irrelevant.

Kenz on November 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Barry’s next lie will be to claim that he was lying to deceive the terrorists and make catching them easier.

“Folks… it was what the intelligence people call ‘strategic misdirection’ to keep the enemy guessing. I’m sorry I had to involve Ms. Rice in it, but she is entirely blameless. We could not let the terrorists know we were on to them so fast. We were letting them play out the line so that we can haul in more of them.”

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

lol I know you know this, but that isn’t really that farfetched!

He’s does not have a healthy psychology – he’s indisputably pathological, and it would be helpful if more of our congresspeople started opening their eyes and accepting this about him.

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2