During closed-door hearings with the House and Senate intelligence committees today, David Petraeus reportedly told lawmakers that the CIA “talking points” issued after the attack — which supported the “spontaneous demonstration” narrative — were altered by other agencies prior to distribution. AP reports:
Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA’s draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure which federal agency took out the reference. …
Petraeus testified that the CIA draft written in response to the raid referred to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) but those names were replaced with the word “extremist” in the final draft, according to a congressional staffer. The staffer said Petraeus testified that he allowed other agencies to alter the talking points as they saw fit without asking for final review, to get them out quickly.
The references to a terrorist attack, Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaeda were apparently replaced with the line: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” That changes the entire meaning of the talking points, yet Democrats quickly downplayed the notion that the alteration was politically-motivated:
Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
“The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “He completely debunked that idea.”
OK, but if Petraeus doesn’t even know which agency or official altered the talking points, how would he possibly know if the change was political or not? Here’s more from the Democrats:
Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”
“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Schiff said. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.
It’s one thing to remove specific details to protect sensitive information. But the draft references to Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaeda are evidence that at the very least the administration strongly suspected these groups were involved from the beginning. In that case, why not just say the investigation into the terrorist attack was ongoing, and leave it at that until more information could be shared? It seems totally irrational to just chalk it up to a spontaneous demonstration, and then cling to that story for nearly two weeks.
Petraeus’s testimony is puzzling for other reasons. As director of the CIA, it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t know who altered the talking points and wouldn’t look them over before distribution. This is the memo that sets much of the “official” narrative in the wake of an attack. And it’s not like these were minor edits. The gulf between calling it a terrorist attack involving al-Qaeda and calling it a spontaneous demonstration is enormous. As with much of what we learn about Benghazi, we’re left again with more questions than answers.
So why did he repeat the talking points in his first briefings? Sure the political appointees tweak the talking points, other political appointees repeat them on television but somehow my gosh there is no politicization. We have no reason to believe that the changes were from civil-servant spook bureaucrats–not definite proof yet the Obama White House drafted its own excuse for the video story, a dummy with its own hand on the jaw stick in a grown-up version of "Please excuse Jimmy from school, he is sick. Signed my mom"–but no evidence to the contrary either.
"As with much of what we learn about Benghazi, we’re left again with more questions than answers." n nNot really. We have more than enough knowledge to conclude that Obama is a liar who stood back and allowed the four Americans to be murdered. It is absurd to describe it as a puzzle that possibly cannot be solved. The president was protecting his reelection chances. He would have almost certainly lost if most voters knew it was a terrorist attack—and al Qaeda remained alive and well even though bin Ladin was dead.
Hmm. I don't think this theory makes much sense. For starters, everybody knows what the situation is with al Qaida. Their leadership has been wiped out, thanks in large part to Obama, along with their bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and all they have left are a few scrappy regional franchises. If anything, blaming the Benghazi attack immediately on al Qaida would have just reminded the electorate that a group that was once able to kill thousands of Americans on U.S. soil has been reduced to bumping off our ambassador in Libya. That would have been a plus for Obama. Secondly, there's the Rally Round the Flag effect. Trouble Overseas, whatever its nature, is pretty much always a net gain for the president in power. If he were really playing politics, Obama could have milked an al Qaida attack, moving an aircraft carrier, primetime Oval Office address…It would have been a classic October surprise, and every right-winger would today be blaming it for Romney's loss. Finally, what possible motivation would Obama have for deliberately letting Americans get murdered? Wouldn't it have been better for his reëlection chances if that hadn't happened?
So here’s where we are:
Susan Rice either lied, is incompetent or simply not cleared to have access to the correct information even though she was designated the White House go-to gal for all the relevant talking points.
That everything we told her to say was 180 degrees opposite of reality and the truth through no fault of her own is MORE evidence that fighting her nomination for Sec State is a partisan witch hunt.
BTW I just heard Gary Ackerman on Al Sharpton 10 minutes ago state categorically “It doesn’t matter what Senator McCain thinks because everything is up to the Majority Leader of the Senate to decide.”
Nice to know the Dems honestly believe we live in a one party autocracy now.
So here's where we are: n nSusan Rice either lied, is incompetent or simply not cleared to have access to the correct information even though she was designated the White House go-to gal for all the relevant talking points. n nThat everything we told her to say was 180 degrees opposite of reality and the truth through no fault of her own is MORE evidence that fighting her nomination for Sec State is a partisan witch hunt. n nBTW I just heard Gary Ackerman on Al Sharpton 10 minutes ago state categorically "It doesn't matter what Senator McCain thinks because everything is up to the Majority Leader of the Senate to decide." n nNice to know the Dems honestly believe we live in a one party autocracy now.
What was it that folk said when the GOP held a majority in the Senate and Bush's judges weren't being allowed an up/down vote? What exactly was the term for having to appease the guy from South Dakota whose name I forget?
It is a standard bureaucratic tactic to intentionally not want to see the changes that higher-ups make in a document of which you are the original author. n nYOU write an honest and accurate document, knowing that higher-ups are going to lie, but they will be doing it, not you. You aren't responsible because you didn't have time to see the revisions, you honestly don't want to know what they are or who exactly made them (although you likely will have a fairly good guess as to both). n nSo if it blows up, as it has here, then you have your original (accurate) document and are not personally responsible for the mess because you honestly don't know who changed it or why — because you didn't want to know and may have taken efforts to avoid knowing. This is the exact same sort of thing as Eric Holder and Fast & Furious — he may have intentionally not wanted to know certain things that were going on in his command. n nThe difference, of course, is that Holder had supervisory responsibilities where Petraeus was not the supervisor of Obama. And that is a very big difference — but folk often intentionally try not to know things….