BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

[The_Grand_Illusion]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri...5445_blog.html


BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

By Jennifer Rubin, Published: NOVEMBER 16, 5:18 PM ET


In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

The irony of this is that Rice may well have been used as a patsy, unaware that she was sent out to spin a misleading tale. My colleague Dana Milbank recounts Rice’s long-standing inability to get along with others and to be circumspect in her pronouncements:

It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. . . . Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

Frankly the same could be said of many national security positions at this point. The American people made their choice in November on the president, but it now appears they were duped regarding the real facts concerning Benghazi. What are we going to do about that?

[ClevelandBronco]

Who gives a **** one way or the other?

[Brainiac]

JFC, this isn't rocket science.

This was all about not embarrassing Obama just before election time. Now, less than two weeks after the election, the truth comes out. And the truth is that the Obama administration knew damn well that the attack had nothing to do with the YouTube video, but it was convenient to make that claim because admitting that it was a terrorist attack would conflict with the claims that candidate Obama was making about making Al Qaeda powerless.

You can deny it all you want, and you can pretend not to understand what the criticism is about, but it's really pointless now. The ploy was successful. Congratulations.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So now the new conspiracy theory since Rice is off the hook because Patreaus and other intel people confirmed they gave her the talking points because they didn't want to tip off anybody is that the POTUS should have tipped off the terrorists?

I am so confused

Unless I'm mistaken, the talking points that CIA gave Rice were altered to not mention that this was a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous response to the YouTube video.

Is that not correct?

If so, the obvious question is: who made the changes to the talking points and why?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

JFC, this isn't rocket science.

This was all about not embarrassing Obama just before election time. Now, less than two weeks after the election, the truth comes out. And the truth is that the Obama administration knew damn well that the attack had nothing to do with the YouTube video, but it was convenient to make that claim because admitting that it was a terrorist attack would conflict with the claims that candidate Obama was making about making Al Qaeda powerless.

You can deny it all you want, and you can pretend not to understand what the criticism is about, but it's really pointless now. The ploy was successful. Congratulations.

I think that motive makes the most sense. Obama was on record as saying that AQ was decimated.

[RINGLEADER]

I still don't understand the fascination with what Obama said or did (or didn't say or didn't do) after the attack.

The real story is what he said or did (or didn't say or didn't do) BEFORE the attack.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

I still don't understand the fascination with what Obama said or did (or didn't say or didn't do) after the attack.

The real story is what he said or did (or didn't say or didn't do) BEFORE the attack.

Bingo

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

I still don't understand the fascination with what Obama said or did (or didn't say or didn't do) after the attack.

The real story is what he said or did (or didn't say or didn't do) BEFORE the attack.

Oh I agree, there is plenty to be concerned about before, during, and after the Benghazi attack. I posted the video of all those in the administration that went out with the false narrative, now we know that just wasn't true. You have to wonder why they did that. Administrations make mistakes all the time but to try to cover it up, you have to wonder why?

TGI

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by The_Grand_Illusion

Oh I agree, there is plenty to be concerned about before, during, and after the Benghazi attack. I posted the video of all those in the administration that went out with the false narrative, now we know that just wasn't true. You have to wonder why they did that. Administrations make mistakes all the time but to try to cover it up, you have to wonder why?

TGI

I think they have to work it backwards to block all holes to make sure no rats escape

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

Unless I'm mistaken, the talking points that CIA gave Rice were altered to not mention that this was a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous response to the YouTube video.

Is that not correct?

If so, the obvious question is: who made the changes to the talking points and why?

Read what I posted above. The CIA approved the altered tp because they didn't want the specific groups mentioned.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Read what I posted above. The CIA approved the altered tp because they didn't want the specific groups mentioned.

Are you referring to this? If so, where does it say that CIA approved the changes?

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

Are you referring to this? If so, where does it say that CIA approved the changes?

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

He said it in his testimony yesterday.

But the CIA eventually approved the modified assessment, King said Petraeus told the committee.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

He said it in his testimony yesterday.

Okay, that's fine.

Now, why was the request made in the first place and by whom?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

Okay, that's fine.

Now, why was the request made in the first place and by whom?

Go ask the CIA but the WH said they had nothing to do with it.

The White House made only small, factual edits to the CIA's initial intelligence assessment on the September attack on Americans in Benghazi, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said Saturday.

"We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment," Rhodes said aboard Air Force One en route to Asia. "The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.”

The White House and State Department changed a reference in the report from "consulate" to "diplomatic facility," he said. "Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

Okay, that's fine.

Now, why was the request made in the first place and by whom?

Bureaucrats. At the time the information was considered "Secret". The U.N. Ambassador can't go on 5 national TV talk shows and say classified information. The "secret" part was redacted and it never made it to the release for the public.

This is public information.

They kept it "secret" because they were hunting the perpetrators down and didn't want them to know they were in the cross-hairs of the USA.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

You took that like carp on a doughball. Like the terrorists are low key. Jesus people will believe anything. Bet he was banging that biographer to learn some cool secrets like James Bond too

It was critical that Rice put the YouTube video story out there, because terrorists watch all the Sunday morning talk shows. And why does it matter that the government lies to us when so many citizens will not only swallow any bullshit that is spoon fed to them, but will be first in line to defend the administration even when they admit they lied?