freeman2 wrote:And by the way Rice did not exclude that the extremist group was tied to Al Qaeda...

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.

GREGORY: We are back. Joined now by the man leading the charge against the Obama administration and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice on this issue of Benghazi, the senior senator from South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham. Senator, let’s get right into it. You’ve just heard the chairs of the Intelligence Committees on Benghazi. The bottom line point, did Director Petraeus call this terrorism from the get go? They say yes. They don’t understand why the administration didn’t call it the same two days later. How do you react?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC; Armed Services Committee): Well, I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer. And Susan Rice just did not say it was a result of a mob spawned by a video like Cairo. She actually said on Face The Nation, “I want to remind the American people this president promised to go after bin Laden, refocus on al Qaeda. He got bin Laden. Al Qaeda has been dismantled.” And the truth of the matter is nothing could’ve been further from the truth, and the story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality.

GREGORY: But let me just interrupt on that point. Let’s be–be very clear about what you’re saying because you also heard Senator Feinstein say unequivocally the notion that there was a cover-up or an attempt to mislead for political reasons is absolutely wrong. She says that it’s character assassination, the way you’re criticizing her, who–you believe the president of the United States sent his ambassador to the U.N. out to mislead the American people so that he could get some sort of political gain before the election? That’s the cover-up you–you’re accusing them of?

SEN. GRAHAM: No. I’m saying that the ambassador that had nothing to do with Benghazi–why would you choose someone who had nothing to do with Benghazi to tell us about Benghazi? That’s kind of odd. The president said, why pick on her? She didn’t know anything about Benghazi. She was the most politically compliant person they could find. I don’t know what she knew but I know the story she told was misleading. I don’t know why it was misleading. But let me put this in context. Would this White House mislead the American people about national security events? I think they might simply because when the bin Laden raid occurred, they leaked every detail about the raid. We have a Pakistani doctor in custody because he told about the role he played. The underwear bomber case where we stopped a plot in Yemen came out in the New York Times. They told us about how this administration stopped the cyber–the role of cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear program in three weeks. We heard a lot of details about classified information to make this president look good. So if they would leak classified information to make him look good, would they withhold information to prevent him from looking bad? I think you could say look at that. …

GRAHAM: [T]o say the intelligence community did a good job, what about the months before this attack? What about the rise of al Qaeda in Benghazi? What about the British ambassador closing the consulate in Benghazi because it was too dangerous for the British? What about the Red Cross leaving? What about all of the warnings come out of Benghazi? Did the CIA tell the president that Benghazi is falling into the hands of al Qaeda? And I blame the president more than anybody else. Susan rice is a bit player here. Was he informed of the June attack on our consulate where they blew a hole where 40 people could go through? Was he aware of the August 15th cable where Stevens was saying we can’t withstand a coordinated al Qaeda attack? There are 10 militia groups all over Benghazi. I blame the president for…

This is getting too hot for comfort, so Gregory steps in to try to prevent further damage to Obama:

GREGORY: Senator…

SEN. GRAHAM: …making this a death trap. I blame the president for not having assets available to help these people for eight hours. We need a select committee not only to look at intelligence failures, but how could the Department of Defense not help these poor people for over eight hours and why did the Department of State for months ignore pleas for help?

(President Obama)

As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous… When they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.

I’ll get to the president’s answer in a moment. For now, it’s important to recall that five days after the Benghazi massacre, Ambassador Rice went on five Sunday talk shows insisting that (a) we had “substantial security presence” at the consulate before the attack; (b) the attacks were spontaneous, not a pre-planned terrorist attack, and the result of “a small handful of heavily armed mobsters;” and (c) “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rice said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

Ambassador Rice was wrong on every particular. The security for the American consulate was nearly non-existent; the attacks were premeditated; they were carried out by Islamic terrorists; there was no mob protest; the video had nothing to do with the attacks; and we did have information that the attacks were pre-planned.

Ambassador Rice’s claims came despite the fact that, according to congressional testimony, the State Department had surveillance feeds and they were able to monitor the attacks in “almost real-time” and that according to media reports, an unarmed Predator drone was performing surveillance missions over Libya when the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began; within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants; and e-mails show that officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group (Ansar al-Sharia) had claimed credit for the attack.

In addition, Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says that within 24 hours of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi he had information from intelligence agencies that what happened were terrorist attacks, not spontaneous attacks inspired by the anti-Islamic video. Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that accounts of the attack and the firepower employed “indicate something more than a spontaneous protest.”

freeman2 wrote:I just don't see the significance of saying the group was tied to Al Qaeda or not.

freeman2 wrote:First of all , go back again to the CIA talking points--she followed them.

You did not answer my contention that by saying that an extremist group hijacked the protest she was linking the attack to terrorism.

They most likely put her out there because they wanted to give her prominent national exposure.

As for security issues that can be addressed without this political grandstanding. This reminds me of all those investigations of Clinton that went on when he was president. I don't think that was good for the country. Elections need to be respected.

danivon wrote:DF, how do you know what the President did or did not know at a particular time?

We now know there was no demonstration, but how can be you so certain that this was a fact known at the time, and specifically as you charge, known by Obama?

* That intelligence professionals watching the Benghazi attack in real time and reading flash messages from the scene weren’t sure an obvious terrorist attack was a terrorist attack. A Cub Scout watching that strike go down would have recognized a planned terror operation.

* That, even now, the attack somehow, magically, might have been partly about that discredited video, after all, since the first phase was sloppier than the crisper second phase. Jeez. It’s obvious the terrorists did what any seasoned commander would do: Used the B-team as bait at the consulate, reserving the A-team to spring the trap on the CIA facility.

* That it was purely coincidental the attack occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

* That doctoring the early CIA analysis to eliminate any mention of terrorism was purely a bureaucratic quirk (having coped with the interagency process, I assure you it would be easy to identify who neutered the analysis — if the White House wanted to).

* That Obama pal and UN Ambassador Susan Rice is so naïve that, after reading the classified analysis blaming a terrorist operation, she found the unclassified, castrated analysis more convincing than common sense.

* That Rice was the logical choice to dispatch to five Sunday talk shows to blame the video for the violence, even though our president himself stated in last week’s press conference that Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi. (We were also treated to another of Obama’s now-routine how-dare-you-question-me hissy fits as he defended Rice with far greater vigor than he defended our team in Benghazi.)

* That it was another bureaucratic coincidence that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wasn’t told about CIA chief David Petraeus’s new exercise routine until late on Election Day — even though Clapper was the one person in the entire government with an obvious need to know.

* That despite the general’s Friday testimony under oath on the Hill that the CIA’s analysis identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terror involving al Qaeda affiliates from the start, the available evidence somehow supported the video-did-it narrative, after all.

* That the president personally did all he could to help our personnel in Benghazi, even though the White House can offer no evidence of it.

* That there was no reason to be concerned about security in Benghazi, even though incidents and requests for better protection had stacked up for months.

* That four Americans dead as a result of a planned act of terror on another Sept. 11, just isn’t that big a deal and we need to move on.

Until we find out who proposed the changes to the briefing, and who was privy to it, this is all speculation.

And it is still of interest why the Republicans complaining about not being briefed enough were doing so at the same time as a briefing that might have given them the information they were complaining about? Or does that question detract too much from the desperation to find a way to impeach Obama?

Washington (CNN) -- An angry Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, warned again Monday she would investigate why the FBI did not notify oversight committees about its investigation into CIA Director David Petraeus after the bureau determined he was having a secret and risky extramarital affair.

"... A decision was made somewhere not to brief us, which is atypical," the California Democrat told NBC's Andrea Mitchell about how the top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence committees are usually briefed on key developments. "This is certainly an operationally sensitive matter. But we weren't briefed. I don't know who made that decision."

Section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947 spells out the requirements for the executive branch to inform the congressional intelligence committees of key intelligence-related activities.

"The president shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed on the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title," the statute reads.
Mukasey: White House knew
Ex-Petraeus spokesman: No Benghazi link
Marks: Petraeus let his guard down

Feinstein described the unfolding scandal, which she first learned about on Friday when Petraeus announced publicly his resignation, "like peeling an onion. Every day another peel comes off, and you see a whole new dimension to this."

freeman2 wrote:http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/16/feinstein-susan-rice-read-unclassified-cia-talking-points
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... d%3D235362

In fact, Petraeus told lawmakers that protesters literally walked in and set fire to the facility, according to a congressional official who attended the briefing. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation. Petraeus said security at the CIA annex was much better, but the attackers had armaments to get in.

King said Petraeus had briefed the House committee on Sept. 14, and he did not recall Petraeus being so positive at that time that it was a terrorist attack. "He thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement," King said. "That was not my recollection."

The basis for the administration’s claims about demonstrations in Benghazi was a phone call between al Qaeda-linked terrorists. The administration built its unclassified talking points around a detail from that call, but stripped out of the memo any indication of affiliation with “extremists.” And why was this crucial detail of an al Qadea (sic) link taken out? It’s not that it wasn’t relevant. Indeed, if one were trying to provide an accurate picture of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, it’s hard to imagine a detail more relevant to the story.

And that might be the problem. Obama administration officials were not trying to provide an accurate picture of what happened in Benghazi on September 11. They were trying to obscure it. Notwithstanding the president’s claims to the contrary, it appears as if the goal of the White House in those early days was to hide the truth from the American people. That’s why you send out a spokesman who “had nothing to do with Benghazi.” It’s why you give her talking points that include a debunked story about a protest that never took place.

Is it why the crucial details about al Qaeda involvement were removed? That’s a good question.

In sworn testimony before closed hearings of congressional intelligence committees last week, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, acting CIA director Mike Morrell, and former CIA director David Petraeus all pleaded ignorance about who made the changes to the intelligence community’s draft talking points.

Petraeus spoke about the discrepancies in his testimony November 16. According to the Associated Press: “Petraeus testified that the CIA draft written in response to the raid referred to militant groups Ansar al Sharia 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.”

We are left with more questions. Who manipulated the CIA’s talking points? And why don’t Clapper, Morrell, and Petraeus know? Who decided to send an official who had “nothing to do with Benghazi” to make the administration’s case to the country? And when will the White House begin to provide answers?

Top committee Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said Rice had gone beyond the talking points.

"She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaida. She knew at that point in time that al-Qaida was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens," Chambliss said.

Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.

. . .

Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:DF, how do you know what the President did or did not know at a particular time?

Why, I take him at his word, of course!

He told the nation, during the second debate, that he called it "terrorism" the very next day.

They were watching it develop in real-time. Now, you may believe his underlings lied to the President or kept him in the dark, but for how long?

Until we find out who proposed the changes to the briefing, and who was privy to it, this is all speculation.

Not really. Why would the DNI and acting CIA director lie about it? This has the fingerprints of "politics" all over it.

And it is still of interest why the Republicans complaining about not being briefed enough were doing so at the same time as a briefing that might have given them the information they were complaining about? Or does that question detract too much from the desperation to find a way to impeach Obama?

I've not mentioned the word.

As I've said, they attended a previous briefing and learned nothing during it.

Why did they send Susan Rice?

Why did she say something, repeatedly, that was known to be untrue?

Why won't they release the info about who changed the talking points? If they can document it was the CIA or the DNI, then the whole conversation is over. In a government full of emails that can't be erased and documents that must be signed for, it's not hard to figure out who made the changes. So, why not release it?

Doctor Fate wrote:The Truth has yet to emerge.