CBS: “Office of the DNI” cut al-Qaeda and terrorism references from Benghazi talking points

posted at 11:01 am on November 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

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:

 

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.

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 3 4

4) Why did the Administration watch the attack and do nothing?

Washington Nearsider on November 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

this is a slanderous accusation without any evidence.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Translation: If I act all insulted by this question maybe you’ll go away and I can continue to obfuscate on the cover lie.

I’d say the evidence is the fact that the regime is willing to get accused of outright lying in order to distract away from their really egregious acts should indicate a lot is being covered-up.

Chip on November 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM

The only good thing in this mess is that Shrillary is out of the country and it may be a long time before she will return. We should be very afraid right now with the bunch guarding the hen house.

Kissmygrits on November 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

sesquipedalian

Charles the fact you have muszak as a thread just now and your busy here… well 2 and 2 and liberal math and all.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2012 at 1:07 PM

i’d just like to make it clear to everyone that this person is not my idiot sockpuppet. it’s someone else’s.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

You don’t have to tell us that. Schad is thoughtful and literate.

You aren’t. But thanks anyways.

kim roy on November 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Who gave the stand down order?

When was it given?

Who wrote it down?

Where is it kept?

Who saw the consulate getting attacked in real time?

What decisions were made during the attack?

What units, aircraft, ships and other military assets were on alert within a 2hr radius of response around this consulate? What units could have responded but were prevented from doing so?

Why was our ambassador’s body allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists?

Why were our SEALs not given assistance and died draped over a blood caked machine gun waiting for help that did not come?

What happened during the attack? What conditions were set before the attack that facilitated it?

What does “do whatever is necessary” mean within the context of a military order?

ted c on November 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I would add: What was the Dear Liar doing that evening in the WH whilst these events were transpiring?

Was he in the situation room?

If not, WHY NOT?

Who was with him in the room?

Where are the pictures of where he was during this time period?

What orders did he issue?


What does “do whatever is necessary” mean within the context of a military order?

To whom did he say this?

What was the exact wording?

When was this order given?

Where are the transcripts of him making the order?

Are there pictures of him talking to whoever was issued this order?

Are there videos of his issuing this order?

Chip on November 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

“An intelligence source. . .”?

Sure, sure. Word from the White House to Clapper: “Have some underling tell the media ‘on background’ that it came from a paper pusher in your office. That’ll get us off the hook.”

I hope the Republicans in Congress don’t buy this fairy tale.

MrLynn on November 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Here is the rule when creating a bureaucracy over another bureaucracy (like the DNI over the IC elements):

1) You get a larger, less responsive organization.

2) Capacity decreases as workforce and its fiefdoms increase.

3) Accountability goes down as the number of directions to place blame increases.

This was also the general criticism of the DNI within the IC:

- It will make it more difficult to get actual INTEL to the people who need it since it has to go through the DNI as an additional bureaucratic hurdle. The DNI will spin INTEL.

Noise goes up, signal goes down.

ajacksonian on November 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM

rice communicated the cia’s talking points. those did not include a reference to any particular terrorist group, apparently due to lack of sufficient evidence and/or tactical considerations. that does not contradict the fact that attacking the consulate and killing the ambassador and three others was an act of terror.

again, why is this important?

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 2:21

Well it proves she’s a lying hack, incompetent or both.
Of course for Libtards being an incompetent lying hack means she’s perfectly suited for Sec of State.

Buttercup on November 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Well it proves she’s a lying hack, incompetent or both.
Of course for Libtards being an incompetent lying hack means she’s perfectly suited for Sec of State.

Buttercup on November 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

You must not have received the memo. This is now a racial code word.

weaselyone on November 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Seems they’regetting a bit desperate, if they want to kill the link to terrorism “tenuous” while pushing a ridiculous tall tale of a spontaneous kinetic movie review to explain why people show up at a U.S. State facility with mortars and RPGs.

But “tenuous” is a good word — for the official version pushed by Susan Rice.

tom on November 20, 2012 at 3:44 PM

so?

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Pitiful response, sissyhooligan. But, expected.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yep.

These people simply do not care to understand why the security requests from Libya were denied, because they don’t want to face the truth that possibly preventable deaths occurred because of those denials by 0dumba’s administration.

Leftists don’t care about protecting innocents much, which is exactly why so many of them oppose gun-ownership rights.

Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM

it’s not going away, sissyhooligan.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM

it’s disappearing in front of your eyes. you’re chasing a mirage.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Not without a better cover story than, “well, it was a bit tenuous which terrorists were behind the attack, so we just blamed it on a spontaneous reaction to a bad movie instead. Cause that’s so much more definitive.”

That kind of weak tea excuse just guarantees the drip-drip-drip of this story will continue.

tom on November 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Great. Now explain how removing the term “Al Qaeda” from an explanation causes someone to claim that “there is no reason to believe that the attacks were cause by anything other than a protest to a movie.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM

blink, you play dumb so well.

The use of AQ is about the same as mentioning that “Hitler” did something or not. It raises eyes as to the politcal purpose behind such an action.

Capiche?

(I’m sure you’ll find some other quibble to pursue. It’s your…..legacy.

Now, let’s quibble about “legacy”, shall we in a further effort to becloud, deflect, and redirect?)

avagreen on November 20, 2012 at 3:51 PM

The families of Amb. Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith would disagree with you. As would those 4 brave Americans, if they were available for comment.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM

you seem to forget that those four were killed by lybian extremists, not the administration.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Ah, an excellent point! (It had to happen eventually.)

Of course, the administration didn’t kill them. Just ordered them to a dangerous place, refused to provide them any decent security, and left them there to die while Libyan extremists attacked.

So, not the administration’s fault at all.

/s

tom on November 20, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Always interesting on a thread like this to see how many trolls show up. Why, it’s almost like the new talking points were released, and they were told to go play up the claim that “the conspiracy theories” went “poof.”

If it’s any help, I have not trouble believing that the “Office of the DNI” removed any politically embarrassing claims. Because I do believe they know how to follow orders.

tom on November 20, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Why was the DNI created?

- In the wake of 9/11 a Commission determined that a centralized clearinghouse for directing INTEL ops to identify information and clearly discern terrorist attacks was needed.

What did the DNI fail to do?

- Clearly discern information on a terrorist attack and ID it as such. On 9/11.

The DNI is a failure by the standards set to bring it about.

ajacksonian on November 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The fact that no military official has leaked either cross border authority or movement orders is deafening. Until those are proven to have been sent and received, I ain’t believing jack squat.

can_con on November 20, 2012 at 4:43 PM

This is a stupid answer that completely misses the point.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Forgive me……..I must have misread.

What were you saying, then?

avagreen on November 20, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Never heard of the “DNI”. Did some looking. Recommended in 1955 (cold war) and formed in 2004. If I read this scary bit of manning charts. Then Petraeus was only a deputy director and the CIA is in fact under the “DNI” at the direction of Ret. Lt General James Clapper. Sure could use a lot of hep understanding this one.
http://www.dni.gov/

jpcpt03 on November 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Why was the DNI created?

- In the wake of 9/11 a Commission determined that a centralized clearinghouse for directing INTEL ops to identify information and clearly discern terrorist attacks was needed.

What did the DNI fail to do?

- Clearly discern information on a terrorist attack and ID it as such. On 9/11.

The DNI is a failure by the standards set to bring it about.

ajacksonian on November 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM

If you remember right…

… the Commission did everything to hide the actions of Democrats leading up to the attack on 09/11/01, such as Jamie Gorelick.

Now it appears we have come full circle…

Seven Percent Solution on November 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

La la la

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2012 at 5:54 PM

CBS appears to be Team Obama’s preferred conduit to issue stories meant to muddy the water.

It really does not matter what Obama appointee actually rewrote the intelligence.

The question is on what basis they did so?

It is one thing to call this a terrorist attack and conservatively decline to identify al Qaeda as the perps.

It is a completely different order of business to deny a terrorist attack took place and instead fabricate a demonstration which never occurred.

Bart DePalma on November 20, 2012 at 6:40 PM

You were so missed on the Clapper thread.

Please post the video timeline, after Obama advertised it, there. Thanks.

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Here you go:

1. The protest in Cairo was not “spontaneous.” It was planned and the reason for it had nothing to do with the video:

* On the 29th of JUNE 2012, the newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi pledged to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh, who he described as a political prisoner.

* On the 2nd of AUGUST 2012, Egypt formally requested that the United States release Abdel-Rahman.

* On the 30th of AUGUST 2012, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya called for a protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo on 11 September 2012 to demand the release of Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh. No mention was made of a film.

* On the 4th of SEPTEMBER 2012, Egyptian deputy Interior Minister, General Sami Sidhom, received a letter warning that Sinai- and Gaza-based Global Jihad cells were planning attacks on the American and Israel embassies in Cairo. Copies of the letter were sent to all Egyptian security sector. No mention was made of a film.

* On the 8th of SEPTEMBER 2012, the Egyptian website, El Fagr, posted a statement by Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya wherein they threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground. No mention was made of a film.

* On the 8th of SEPTEMBER 2012, the Egyptian TV network al-Nas, which had periodically been suspended under the Mubarak regime for “promoting religious or sectarian hatred,” aired a short montage of a clip of clip from the trailer of “The Innocence of Muslims” in which a man playing Muhammad calls a donkey “the first Muslim animal.” The show, Masr El-Gadeeda, was hosted by Muslim Salafist hardliner, Sheikh Khalid Abdallah. Abdallah has been described as “part of a school of particularly shrill religious demagogues who turn every possible event into an attack on Islam” by the New York Times and Abdullah’s channel “traffics in demagoguery and hatemongering. Abdallah is its star. In previous broadcasts, he has called the revolutionaries of the Arab Spring ‘worthless kids’ and condemned newspapers that don’t support his views,” according to Time.

Once again, the root — when pulled — returns to the Blind Sheikh and the outrage at the youtube clip was manufactured by the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Sheikh Khalid Abdallah and his network had been demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh for months. The airing of the video clip on the Saturday before the Cairo protest was not accidental. It was a strategic and planned move by leaders like Nader Bakar of the Salafist Nour Party and Mohammed al-Zawahiri, brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s longtime deputy and now head of al-Qaeda.

* On the 9th of SEPTEMBER 2012, the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masry Al-Youm (Egypt Independent) reported that it had received a copy of the “top secret” letter, which stated that Egypt’s General Intelligence Service had notified the ministry’s national security body that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo. No mention was made of a film.

* On the 9th of SEPTEMBER 2012, the US State Department had credible information that American missions may be targeted in Cairo and Benghazi; yet, no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement are to be severely restricted. No mention was made of a film.

* On the 10th of SEPTEMBER 2012, Raymond Ibrahim at PJMedia.com (I read this the day BEFORE the attacks) reported the threat and linked to the site. He also translated the post from El Fagr:

“The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

No mention was made of a film.

* On the MORNING OF THE 11th of SEPTEMBER 2012, The Jerusalem Post reported that Egypt’s General Intelligence Service had warned that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo. No mention was made of a film.

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:41 PM

2. The attack on Benghazi was not a “spontaneous protest” and the administration knew about both the substandard security as well as the credible and actionable intelligence:

* The State Department had to issue a waiver for the consulate in Benghazi because security failed to meet its own basic security standards and those set forth in Federal law.

* The Benghazi consulate had been bombed twice in the FIVE MONTHS LEADING UP TO 09.11.12.

* Specific threats had been made against the ambassador, the consulate, and other assets in Benghazi.

* Increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi had been made during the SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ATTACK.

* On the 10th of JUNE 2012, an assassination attempt had been made on the British ambassador, which led to the entire mission being abandoned.

* Diplomatic cables warned of security concerns in Benghazi and flatly said the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack.

* The Red Cross had been attacked in May and al Qaeda had left threats there on the day of the attack mentioning the American consulate.

* On the 22nd of JUNE 2012, Ambassador Stevens warned State that extremist groups were carrying out terrorists attacks, making threats against Western targets, and he believed that he was a target.

* On the 9th of JULY 2012, Stevens requested at least 13 more security personnel.

* On the 21st of JULY 2012, the private security contractor, Nordstrom, warned State to be on high alert for terrorist activity. State refused to renew Nordstrom’s contract on 5 Aug and replaced it with a Welsh group, Blue Mountain, which had little knowledge of the conditions in Libya and hired inexperienced locals for $4 an hour.

* On the 2nd of AUGUST 2012, Stevens sent an urgent cable to Clinton requesting a “protective detail bodyguard.”

* On the 16th of AUGUST 2012, the consulate security team leaves while sending a message directly to Clinton of the dire security situation.

* On the 8th of SEPTEMBER 2012, Libyan officials in Benghazi warned both Ambassador Stevens and Secretary Clinton of a pending attack on the consulate.

* 4 HOURS BEFORE HE WAS KILLED, Stevens cabled Washington.
He told Hillary’s office that there were at least 10 al Qaeda groups openly training in Benghazi and he/and the consulate were operating under extremis conditions.

* It was the 11th anniversary of the original 9/11.

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:45 PM

3. The Administration and the MSM keep saying that there was no actual warning made against the Libyan missions, apart from those listed above. That is blatantly untrue.

On the 9th of SEPTEMBER 2012, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri made direct threats against Americans in Libya and the American missions in Libya to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-ranking al-Qaeda official taken out by an American drone attack in June in Pakistan.

On the 10th of SEPTEMBER 2012, a 42-minute long version of al-Zawahiri’s threats was posted on Jihadist forums. In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi’s “blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders,” leading up to “a date heralded and celebrated” (wink, wink) by radical Islamists.

4. Finally, the Administration and the MSM keep saying that Benghazi was just part of this “global, spontaneous protests against the video.” It bears repeating that there were ONLY TWO protests/attacks on American missions on the 11th anniversary of any note: Cairo and Benghazi.

The others did not happen until AFTER the American Embassy in Cairo issued this statement on the 11th of SEPTEMBER 2012:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

And, AFTER Obama made this statement in the Rose Garden on the 12th of SEPTEMBER 2012:

“Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi….The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack…Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence (as though what happened in Benghazi was a drive-by in Chicago). None.”

And, AFTER other Administration officials made statements condemning the video. Here are the dates on which the protests at American embassies/consulates started:

Yemen: 14 September
Greece: 23 September
Sudan: 14 September
Tunisia: 14 September
India: 14 September
Indonesia: 17 September
Pakistan: 14 September
Lebanon: 17 September
Kenya: 16 September
Mauritius: 25 September
Nigeria: 22 September
South Africa: 8 October
Sudan: 12 September
Tanzania: 21 September
Bangladesh: 13(attempted)/21/23/September
Hong Kong: 24 September
Philippines: 15 September
Sri Lanka: 21 September
Thailand: 27 September
France: 15 September
Belgium: 16 September
Germany: 21/22 September
Italy: 23 September
Macedonia: 23 September
Netherlands: 14 September
Russia: 26 September
Switzerland: 23 September
UK: 14 September
Iran: 12 September
Iraq: 13 September

Seriously, if the Obama administration had wanted to tamp down youtube video-related violence, it just should have shut up, already. The more it spoke about the idiotic video, the more the protests and violence spread. Some countries didn’t even see their first protests until Obama went to the UN and blamed the video 6 times.

There you go, Schad. :-)

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Starting vacation a little early? You clearly phoned it in on this post.

Hill60 on November 20, 2012 at 7:06 PM

There you go, Schad. :-)

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Dude…

… +7%!

Seven Percent Solution on November 20, 2012 at 7:40 PM

If you remember right…

… the Commission did everything to hide the actions of Democrats leading up to the attack on 09/11/01, such as Jamie Gorelick.

Now it appears we have come full circle…

Seven Percent Solution on November 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Great resource about the failures of both FM’s and the resulting bursting of the housing bubble, of which Obama also played a big part as an ACORN lawyer.

Thanks!

avagreen on November 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

There you go, Schad. :-)

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Dude…

… +7%!

Seven Percent Solution on November 20, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Yesssss! Wonderful line of action on all this. Another Great Resource! The MSM isn’t a match for the everyday patriot citizen!

avagreen on November 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Why was the DNI created?

- In the wake of 9/11 a Commission determined that a centralized clearinghouse for directing INTEL ops to identify information and clearly discern terrorist attacks was needed.

What did the DNI fail to do?

- Clearly discern information on a terrorist attack and ID it as such. On 9/11.

The DNI is a failure by the standards set to bring it about.

ajacksonian on November 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Is this why the FBI’s first response to an incident is always “There is no connection to terrorism” type of statement?

Explains a lot.

TfromV on November 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM

It’s not going to be long before State and the WH finally figure out that they can get out of this by saying that they did not want to risk disclosing ‘sources and methods’ and not revealing the terrorist connection was preserving OPSEC and avoided tipping our hand about what we knew about the attack so the terrorists would not be prompted to increase their own security in turn.

Then can we forget this conversation of who edited the talking points for Rice and get back to the fact that FOUR AMERICANS ARE DEAD BECAUSE THEIR COMMANDER IN CHIEF ABANDONED THEM IN THEIR HOUR OF DESPERATION.

Talking about racist code words and who edited the talking points does not change the outcome nor help us discover who made the decision not to aid the four AMERICANS who are now DEAD (my money is on Obama).

ElRonaldo on November 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM

There you go, Schad. :-)

Resist We Much on November 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM

You’re the best. Now, if only the resident dummy would own up to having read it…

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Wow, you guys are becoming more and more unhinged! This is the best fake scandal ever. Keep it up!

bileduct on November 21, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Wow, you guys are becoming more and more unhinged! This is the best fake scandal ever. Keep it up!

bileduct on November 21, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Now Watergate, there was a scandal!!

Now Scooter Libby, there was a scandal!!

A few dead Americans because the Obama administration saw no need to worry about protecting its people in one of the most dangerous parts of the world is just a nothingburger.

Why, that’s no more scandalous than, say, arranging gunrunning to drug cartels in Mexico without the knowledge of the Mexican government.

See, if you wingnuts had gone to Harvard, you could grasp our smartpower.

/sarc

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 21, 2012 at 2:41 AM

I got Osama Bin Laden… and Al Qaeda got our Ambassador.

Not a winning election slogan.

That’s the crux of this b.s.

Obama was scared.

And now wraps himself up in a cloak of holes.

Trying to cover his lies with even more lies.

The implosion of prevarication is coming.

profitsbeard on November 21, 2012 at 3:58 AM

LOL, still butt hurt over Watergate? Looks like you’ve got Watergate Derangement Syndrome!

Now, as you were. This is all *very* entertaining :)

bileduct on November 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM

Seven Percent Solution on November 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

To a large degree that was part of the problem. The other part was the idea that ‘Congress must do something’ and the only thing Congress can do is tax, spend and create bureaucracy.

DNI was the result. Increased bureaucracy does not lead to increased competence, increased reliability nor to increased accountability. You do the math.

Is this why the FBI’s first response to an incident is always “There is no connection to terrorism” type of statement?

Explains a lot.

TfromV on November 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM

In a nutshell: the FBI is to investigate ‘crimes’.

Terrorism is an act of war.

Sending the FBI in is an attempt to ‘normalize’ Private War and that has been going on for decades.

The FBI, itself, has amalgamated so many parts into itself that it suffers from the same things DNI and DHS do: increased incompetence, decreased accountability, more places to point fingers.

Bureaucrats have one mission: to expand bureaucracy. They do it to avoid accountability and to get unaccountable power in fiefdoms they control.

ajacksonian on November 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM

You folks fail to understand that in a Democrat administration, neither the DNI nor any other appointee is actually responsible to the President if they do something bad. They are in charge of doing the bad stuff and Obama is in charge of doing the good stuff. If there is a Republican President, it is exactly the opposite, except that there isn’t any good stuff. Try to keep up.

drunyan8315 on November 21, 2012 at 8:41 AM

[Also posted on a Green Room thread, but relevant here:]

Here’s what Larry Johnson (No Quarter) about the DNI ‘background’ leak to CBS:

. . . The explanation out of the DNI’s office is total horseshit. The “intel community” does not make changes. There is a manager or an analyst who physically typed the words. If that was done in the DNI office then they will know who did it. These people need to be put under oath.

But don’t get distracted by this nonsense. Obama and his entire National Security team knew the night of 9-11 that the United States had been hit by a group tied to Al Qaeda. No doubt about that. They wanted to cover up their covert op that was shipping weapons to jihadists in Syria and did not want to disrupt Obama’s meme about having Al Qaeda on the run. [my emphasis]

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/74445/somebody-is-lying-on-the-rice-talking-points/#more-74445

We need a Select Committee to get to the bottom of all this, but it won’t happen unless a whistle blower from inside the White House forces Harry Reid’s hand.

MrLynn on November 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM

This whole thing seems amateurish. It’s propaganda, but amateur propaganda…when I think the truth from the get go would have worked better, much better, though a lot of people wouldn’t have liked it. But, if they’d just been straight forward, this thing would be long gone as an issue. IMO, I think the set up in Benghazi as well as the Mideast in general was considered and deliberate administration policy. Believing much of an American profile in the area would be offensive to the locals, the admin kept a very low one by design. The didn’t want to put forth what they considered an imperialistic profile. The didn’t want a lot of serious protection or visible US personnel. There were willing to run the risk some breach of “security,” of some damage to property, perhaps even of some injury to personnel to avoid being thought of as ugly, imperialistic Americans. They thought our interests and those of the host nations would be better represented that way. It was there world view…gentle friendship behind the scenes, not overt force. I think they could have made a case for that approach, although I don’t necessarily agree with it. My big concern is that rather than standing by whatever policy decisions they made…not to keep strong American guards and protective munitions, to use local security, whatever, and being truthful about their policies, they lied. Why? Didn’t they carefully plot out the risks of their policies and make informed decisions with which they were comfortable, in which they believed. Did they no faith that they could make their case to the American people so that they believed they had to lie to the citizenry? Do they people they must be infallible and god-like so they can never admit to mistakes? WTH?

Why make it about an obscure video? The demo in Cairo was to free the Blind Sheik. His relatives were there. It was apparently preplanned and there was at least one huge Blind Sheik banner hanging the area captured for TV, so why the video apology from the Embassy? Why was the Blind Sheik rarely if ever mentioned by admin officials? In Benghazi, the ambassador had conveyed that he expected trouble and wanted more protection. In fact,there already had been lots of trouble, before and after some stupid video. The Red Cross had packed up and left because they’d been attacked. Was that the video? The British had packed up and left because they’d been attacked. Was that the video? Other Western presences had gone for similar reasons. Benghazi was a known terrorist bed, even though many locals apparently also respected and were friendly towards the US ambassador. Bringing up the video and apologizing for freedom of speech, putting the vid maker in jail. Really? Why? Why make it about the vid? Why go to the UN and declare that “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?” With the vid stuff, was our admin still trying to make some low profile, we respect your culture and religion point? Why not the truth to the American people? Are they afraid we can’t handle the truth?

limmo on November 21, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Chip on November 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Great questions which undoubtedly (like Fast and Furious) will go unanswered as the WH continues to get Congress and the American people to chase rabbits such as Petraeus’ affair, General Allen’s relationship, who changed what, why Broadwell was Petraeus’ biographer, Susan Rice, and whatever else they can dig up to be chased.

This is all disgusting but exactly the way the Owe admin played Fast and Furious (which seems to have fallen by the way side as intended).

katablog.com on November 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

it’s disappearing in front of your eyes. you’re chasing a mirage.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

If Obama gave the order for everyone to do everything they could to provide assistance in Benghazi, then who disobeyed that order and instead issued the stand down order? Who overrode the command of the Commander in Chief? Don’t ya think he would be rather intent on finding this out, like, yesterday? Especially if Obama “isn’t to blame”, but an insubordinate underling is?

So who disobeyed Obama? Why are they not facing court-marital? How long would it take to find that out, with his reputation on the line?

Saltyron on November 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

another fake scandal bites the dust.

yawn.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

So there really aren’t four dead Americans. It was all a right-wing production. That’s awesome! Care to tell their families the good news?

Saltyron on November 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Questions of what happened are appropriate and nessecary. Holding people to account for both the conditions and response is absolutely nessecary.

Making this fight about Rice, is downright stupid. She does not have the authority or role of creating policy or position on this issue.

There is a reason Obama talked about her being the easy target, they are loving the “Rice Fight”, just really poorly played by McCain/Graham. They completely took their eye off the real issue and are starting to look silly.

NextGen on November 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Anyone know why the gay community is not in an uproar over Ambassador Stevens death?

Belle on November 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Anyone know why the gay community is not in an uproar over Ambassador Stevens death?

Belle on November 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Because the MSM won’t/wouldn’t cover it, if it did/already has happened? Who wudda thought that might be the case……with our MSM?

avagreen on November 21, 2012 at 2:52 PM

If Obama gave the order for everyone to do everything they could to provide assistance in Benghazi, then who disobeyed that order and instead issued the stand down order? Who overrode the command of the Commander in Chief? Don’t ya think he would be rather intent on finding this out, like, yesterday? Especially if Obama “isn’t to blame”, but an insubordinate underling is?

So who disobeyed Obama? Why are they not facing court-marital? How long would it take to find that out, with his reputation on the line?

Saltyron on November 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

This post is a good example of how completely unhinged Hot Air readers have become over this fake scandal.

There was no stand down order. A response team left the annex building 24 minutes after the attack began to rescue the people from the “consulate” building, and a second rapid response team was flown in from Tripoli to evacuate everyone at the annex. Glenn Doherty was a member of the team that flew in from Tripoli, so it would be a bit hard for him to end up dead at the annex building if he’d been told to stand down, yeah? Or are you suggesting he ran from Tripoli to Benghazi?

You clowns have been hoodwinked by Fox News who wanted to stir up as much Obama resentment as they could before the election.

Stop watching Sean Hannity.

bileduct on November 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Anyone know why the gay community is not in an uproar over Ambassador Stevens death?

Belle on November 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Are the gay community in an uproar at the death of every single gay person?

Anyone know why Belle is asking such idiotic questions?

bileduct on November 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM

The Presidents “Shadow Government” raises it’s ugly head.

jpcpt03 on November 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

We The People were miss led, We The People were lied to. We The People take action. Start Alpha-Omega.
0101010001101000011001010010000001100010011001010110011101101001011011100110111001101001011011100110011100100000011011110110011000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110010101101110011001000000110100001010

jpcpt03 on November 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Is Clapper a Chicago traines liar like the rest of the Obamastuds?

Obamatrix on November 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4