by Chris S
With the recent release of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi, conservative commentators have pounced on portions of the report that confirm that there were no protests before the attack on the console, that the attackers were not motivated by the infamous anti-Muslim video that caused protests around the Muslim world, and that the attack could have been prevented with heightened security.
Critics have used these facts to add fuel to their theory that the Obama administration falsely and deliberately misled the American public by stating that the attackers were motivated by the video, and that he did so in order to help his chances in the 2012 presidential election. Thinking that a terrorist attack would make him look bad, the Obama administration decided to lie to the public for political gain.
To these critics, the Senate Intelligence Report has been used as confirmation of this deception, proof that the left was wrong to dismiss them as conspiracy theorists. They have used it to call for the impeachment of President Obama over an offense that’s worse than Watergate.
Only one problem: the rest of the report completely demolishes their theory.
It should first be noted that almost none of what’s in the report is new information. We’ve known for months that the attack had little to no connection with the other protests around the world that day, and that the compound should have been better protected.
But the report found no evidence of a political cover-up, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the video narrative came not from the White House, but from the intelligence community. Page 45 of the report shows the first draft of the CIA’s talking points, which reads:
1) Fri., Sept. 14th 2012,_11:15 a.m.-· ·written by Director, CIA Office of Terrorism Analysis~ 
• We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.
Following the first draft you can see the many edits that the CIA talking points went through. There was less and less confidence about the existence of protests in Benghazi as more information came to light.
The report goes on to conclude:
We now know that the CIA’s September 15, 2012, talking points were inaccurate in that they wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11. According to CIA emails dated September 16, 2012, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA requested further information from CIA staff at Embassy Tripoli about whether there was countervailing evidence of protests that occurred prior to the attacks in Benghazi. It was not until September 24, 20 12-eight days later-that the IC revised its assessment that there were no protests leading up to the attacks (see discussion in the main report under Finding #9 for bipartisan Committee views on the development of the intelligence picture after the attacks).
5. The Talking Points Went Through the_Normal Interagency Coordination Process.
The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and t hat there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, “They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through.”146 In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination.
…The Majority agrees that the process to create the talking points was not without problems, so we join our Republican colleagues in recommending-as we do in the report-that in responding to future requests for unclassified talking points from Congress, the IC should simply tell Congress which facts are unclassified and let Members of Congress provide additional context for the public. However, we sincerely hope that the public release of the emails on May 15, 2013, that describe the creation of the talking points, and the evidence ·presented in this report, will end the misinformed and unhelpful talking points controversy once and for all.
Sadly, the report did NOT “end the misinformed and unhelpful talking points controversy once and for all.” Conspiracy theorists rarely acknowledge evidence that contradicts their theories, no matter how strong that evidence is.
The Benghazi conspiracy theory never made sense in the first place. Obama called the attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Later that week and the next, he told both Jay Leno and Univision that “extremists” had used the video as an “excuse” for their attacks. If Obama was desperate to convince Americans that this was not a planned terrorist attack, why would he make these comments?
Furthermore, it’s never been clear why Republicans believe that the outcome of the election would have been any different if the Obama administration had never mentioned the video. How would that have helped Romney? This election was about who could convince Americans that they were looking out for their economic interests, not about foreign policy. Obama, for all his faults, is a shrewd politician; he had no motive to lie about the motives for the attack.
Finally, the fact that the CIA attributed the attack to a spontaneous protest triggered by the video has been a well-known fact for several months, and easily accessible news reports and interviews with people involved in the attack also made mention of the video. The notion that this story was “invented” by the White House was never true, and that’s been pointed out to Republicans dozens of times in the past year.
These facts have been available for quite a while, and clearly show that the White House’s comments about the video were based on the best information available at the time, provided for them by the intelligence community. The Senate report merely confirms
this.
Republicans who care about the truth, and who are genuinely opposed to using the deaths of four Americans as a political football-as they’ve falsely accused Obama of doing-now have two options: they can present evidence challenging the Senate report and showing that there was an Obama-led cover-up. Or, provided such evidence doesn’t exist, they can admit that they were wrong to accuse the Obama administration of a conspiracy based on zero evidence, drop their focus on Benghazi as if it is the worst event in American history, and we can all move on to the real scandals of the Obama administration: his war on whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, signing indefinite detention into law, and the NSA wiretapping scandal are all atrocities that should be bringing the left and right together in opposition to the president’s violations of constitutional rights under the pretense of national security.
Unfortunately, too many Republicans already seem to have chosen a third option: selectively quote portions of the report, ignore all evidence that doesn’t fit the conspiracy narrative, and accuse Obama of treason and call for impeachment based on a report that flatly rebukes them for doing that very thing.
Which will you choose?
Thanks for posting. For some reason the italics aren’t showing up though, making it hard to differentiate my comments from the report. Some day I’ll figure out HTML…
You’re welcome.
Aside from the speculative conclusions, which I disagree with, I enjoyed reading this article. It was very well done and well supplied with examples, albeit examples short of being hard evidence.
This is why I think some of the conclusions may be premature, and I say that as an independent thinker with no agenda to see it go one way or the other. i just wanted the facts and they were not present.
My basis for this is, the secret Benghazi transcripts released to the public were only about 50% complete, the good stuff was still blacked out. You can’t reach supportable opinions with a majoritity of the facts blacked out!
I obtained a copy of the sub-committee report and read it in it’s original pdf version. The first word that came to mind while reading…bloviating.
It was a report filled with gratuitus political posturing absent few details or actual evidence.
I read a lot of back peddling commentary and excuse making, but the public report absent anything you could take to court as evidence.
I was led to believe this was a bombshell expose’ of the whole truth… it was not. It neither proved nor disproved anything. I was very disappointed.
Jack, what evidence, specifically, would you like to see? What questions remain unanswered to you?
The main issue I addressed in this article was the claim that the Obama administration sent Susan Rice out with the video story for political gain, knowing that the story was untrue and that the attack was not part of an anti-video protest.
To my eye, the evidence provided in the report disproves that claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. It shows the first draft of the CIA talking points which says there was a protest and identifies the film as the major motivating factor. This proves that the video story did not originate with the White House, and fits with all the other available evidence from news reports at the time that also indicated there was a protest and that the attackers were motivated by the video. Subsequent drafts of the CIA talking points also say there were anti-video protests; it wasn’t until more than a week after Susan Rice made this claim that the CIA began backpeddling on this idea. I’m not sure how you can say the CIA talking points would not be admittable as evidence in court.
Are you saying that you still believe it’s an open question whether the White House engineered the video story for political gain? If so, what is it about this evidence that is unpersuasive to you? And what more evidence would you need to prove that the video narrative came from the intelligence community, not the White House, and was based on the best information available at the time?
Chris, how about this from someone who was just miles away and testified at a congressional hearing. I believe he was demoted aka fired because of what he said.
Benghazi witness: We knew it was a terrorist attack ‘from the get go’:
Published May 05, 2013
“A top State Department official scheduled to give congressional testimony this week on the fatal attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, says he knew immediately they were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.
“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get go,” says Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the number two U.S. official in Libya at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”
Hicks is one of two self-described State Department “whistle-blowers” scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. The other is Mark Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau.
The third witness, Eric Nordstrom, an agency diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, has already testified before Congress.
Their testimony also comes amid recent concerns that the State Department is perhaps intimidating officials who know about the attacks and want to testify.
Hicks is highly critical of the Obama administration’s explanation in the immediate aftermath of the attacks — that the strikes were sparked by earlier protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video.
The attacks killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’ front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable,” says Hicks, according to the transcript provided by the committee. “And secondly, if he had reported it, he would have been out the back door within minutes of any demonstration appearing anywhere near that facility. And there was a back gate to the facility, and, you know, it worked. … Chris’ last report, if you want to say his final report, is, “Greg, we are under attack.”
He also expresses frustration about why U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on all the major Sunday talk shows five days after the attacks and said they were sparked by protest and not premeditated, as Libya President Magarief was saying otherwise.
“I reported an attack on the consulate,” Hicks says in the transcripts. “It’s jaw dropping that to me how that came to be. … I was personally known to one of Ambassador Rice’s staff members. And, you know, we’re six hours ahead of Washington. Even on Sunday morning I could have been called.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/chaffetz-state-department-officials-fear-retaliation-on-benghazi-more-will-talk/
Hick’s testimony before Congress.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=benghazi+greg+hicks+fired&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=1D7C25A59B6BE1356D811D7C25A59B6BE1356D81
Greg Hicks demoted to desk job:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=benghazi+greg+hicks+fired&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=A382E7018D9C1C743186A382E7018D9C1C743186
Lawyer for Benghazi whistleblower Greg Hicks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-fzq9nf4C4
I’m with Jack. I just want the truth. If this administration has nothing to hide, then let the 30+ eyewitness from Benghazi tell us and Congress what happened.
Peggy, Hicks’ testimony is addressed in the report. As I said, everyone now acknowledges that the initial talking points were wrong, and that there was no protest before the attack. But the source of the misunderstanding was clearly the CIA, not the administration. This was an intelligence failure, and the administration should have done more to get the truth from the get-go, but it wasn’t a cover-up.
I’m not sure what’s up with the smiling Michelle Obama pic in this article–seems kind of random. But thanks for providing pics to spice up what I’m sure is my somewhat dry reporting. 😉
Hi Chris, I liked the look of Michelle, as if she were saying…see I told you so! lol But, on a larger note pictures do bring attention to your article and so whenever I can I like to include pictures. These are people who are involved, Hillary and Obama and it helps the story line. That’s all there was to it. If you would rather not have the pictures, I can pull them. -Jack
Chris writes: “But the report found no evidence of a political cover-up, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the video narrative came not from the White House, but from the intelligence community.”
I’m having a problem squaring that assertion. The intelligence community, like the State Department inform the President; the President decides what the official position will be.
Statements made by the President, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice shortly after the attack suggest a coordinated presentation. Statements made by others suggest all of them knew from the beginning that it was a terror attack but they chose to push the video story.
Statements made by others also suggest something fishy is going on. I have excerpted from the timeline posted at The Blaze; follow the link to see the entire timeline of significant events.
The BLaze posted video(at link) of Sean Smiths mother appearing on FOX News:
The left said over and over again for eight years that responsibility goes straight to the top but now they blame the intelligence community or a video…anyone except the man that was basically uninvolved in events where he should have been front and center. Hillary, as Secretary of State answers to Obama. As ambassador to the UN Susan Rice also answers to the President….he made the UN ambassador position a cabinet position so she serves in his cabinet. Jay Carney is the Presidents mouthpiece…his job is to “stand in” for the President and deliver his thoughts to the press.
Chris #6: “But the source of the misunderstanding was clearly the CIA, not the administration.”
This is where you’re wrong or confused. The CIA did report it as an attack.
From Tina’s #8:
May 15, 2013
The White House releases internal emails showing changes to Benghazi talking points. The emails show that the CIA initially referenced the participation of al-Qaeda, but those references were later removed. (BY WHOM?)”
Fifteen individuals that cooperated with investigators have been killed and 30+ survivors from the attack are being prevented from disclosing what they know. Why? What does this administration not want us to know?
From CNN:
(CNN) — The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was “likely preventable” based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.
Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel — that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.
Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven’t been able to determine whether any one group was in command.
On the investigation, the FBI was quoted in the report as saying the 15 deaths have severely hampered its probe.
“The FBI’s investigation into the individuals responsible for the Benghazi attacks has been hampered by inadequate cooperation and a lack of capacity by foreign governments to hold these perpetrators accountable, making the pursuit of justice for the attacks slow and insufficient,” the report said.
“As a result, key information gaps remain about the potential foreknowledge and complicity of Libyan militia groups and security forces, the level of pre-planning for the attacks, the perpetrators and their involvement in other terrorist activities and the motivation for the attacks.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/senate-benghazi-report/index.html
And there is this possibility from another CNN article.
Washington (CNN) — A Republican member of Congress in charge of investigating the Benghazi attacks in which four Americans were killed said Monday that questions remain about what happened that night but he does not think the Obama administration formulated a “complete cover-up.”
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Georgia, chair of a House Intelligence subcommittee, said incompetence is the likely culprit. “I don’t think they knew what they were doing,” he said.
He said the various arms of government involved — the State Department and intelligence agencies — “got their communications mixed up.”
“I think what ended up happening, you had the State Department trying to tell one story and you had the security, the intelligence community that may have been trying to sell another story,” Westmoreland said on CNN’s “New Day.”
Westmoreland’s subcommittee interviewed five CIA contractors who were at the compound that night.
More than a year after the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, questions still linger as to what led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The House Intelligence Committee has held 15 hearings on the attacks.
Benghazi Consulate Attack Fast Facts
In the days following the September 11, 2012, attacks, the Obama administration said the incident was not a planned attack but was a protest turned violent. That story quickly unraveled and the administration has been accused of a cover-up.
“I don’t think there was any doubt that they knew it was a coordinated attack,” Westmoreland said, pointing to the “accuracy of the mortar fire that came.”
More questions about a cover-up arose recently when members of Congress found out that Americans present that night were asked to sign an updated nondisclosure agreement.
CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin reported last week that a source told him that “there is not a person in Washington, D.C., who doesn’t understand why the forms were put in front of these people.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/politics/westmoreland-benghazi-attacks/index.html
Chris … don’t be so polite. We both know what the pictures are supposed to do: undercut your nicely supported narrative with the psycho supposition that the Obamas, both of the, personally, had a hand in the Benghazi deaths. Shameless … and feeble.
There’s another line of significant policy and events at Discover The Networks that includes this information:
What? Did Obama let the American people in on this? Did he have the support of the people to do it? Does it bother you? Does it matter? Do you care? Are you awake?
Libby: “…supposition that the Obamas, both of the, personally, had a hand in the Benghazi deaths. Shameless … and feeble.”
Michelle we can dismiss from the room.
But the President is culpable and grandly so: For the lack of military readiness; for the lack of adequate preparation, coordination and planning at a vulnerable and violent spot, especially as the anniversary of 911 approached; for the grossly inadequate security; for apparently (Cause he’s a monster if he knew) being unaware of the violence against the Red Cross, the strength of enemy presence in the area, and for not even taking a cue from the British who got their people OUT. He is responsible for being absent during the long night of the attack, focusing instead on his election prospects, a major dereliction of his duty as CIC.
Your protestations are shameless and feeble given the way you believed GWB had a direct hand in the shameful Abu Graib incident.
You are such a phony!
As to the comments made by Chris on the Picture of Michelle, I also wondered why her?, heres a link to what would have better described the WH and Sec of state Hillary Clinton’s failures:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203298/Victims-Benghazi-massacre-return-home-Obama-Clinton-pay-tribute.html
Forgot to add these thoughts, Obama and Clinton are hanging their heads in shame over a unnecessary loss of four American lives, But what difference does it make, at least to Clinton!
“Michelle we can dismiss from the room.”
Then what’s her piture doin’ here?
Libby see Jack @ #15…he “liked the look of Michelle, as if she were saying…see I told you so”
Here Jack is trying to do Chris a solid and you still complain…good grief!
FYI to Chris and others interested in the Benghazi attack.
Enclosed in the below article is a link to a letter from Rep. Frank Wolf to John Boehner requesting a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Also included in the letter is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal written by Greg Hicks.
Greg Hick’s letter makes a very powerful case, in my opinion.
http://allenbwest.com/2014/01/breaking-new-letter-boehner-re-benghazi/
I wonder if Speaker Boehner will appoint the Select Committee and if not why not after all this time? We and the dead’s family deserve the truth.