CBS News is the latest outlet for the famous Sept 15 CIA talking points which sorta kinda exonerate UN Ambassador Susan Rice and her Sunday talk show suicide:
CIA talking points for Susan Rice called Benghazi attack "spontaneously inspired" by protests
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points
given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal
attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS
News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were
also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no
reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Rice,
who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as
secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on "Face the Nation" (video)
on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack "began spontaneously" -
suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video
found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other
Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.
The CIA's talking points read as follows:
"The
currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in
Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy
in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic
post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that
extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
This
assessment may change as additional information is collected and
analyzed and as currently available information continues to be
evaluated.
The investigation is on-going, and the US
Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those
responsible for the deaths of US citizens."
If the key paragraph, which includes "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy
in Cairo" seems familiar, that is only because you have been following the story.
Eli Lake excerpted the CIA talking points back on Oct. 1:
Why did it take eight days for the administration to
acknowledge the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi were acts of terrorism? An
unclassified briefing document provides new clues, writes Eli Lake.
...
The talking points say, among other
things, “The currently available information suggests that the
demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests
at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the
US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are
indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
In
addition, the briefing says this “assessment may change as additional
information is collected” and that the “investigation is on-going.”
Evidently that didn't stick because WaPo dean David Ignatius was given the talking points for an Oct 19 column defending Susan Rice:
CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice
about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence,
according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.
“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice
taped three television appearances, support her description of the
Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about
an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA
account, “The currently available information suggests that the
demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests
at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against
the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications
that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
And now CBS News makes three.
So Susan Rice wasn't lying, she was a useful patsy with no operational responsibility for the debacle.
And as a bonus conspiracy theory - the CIA was lying in its talking points because it had no desire to admit that the attackers may have been attempting to free militants held at an off-the-books CIA detention center. Team Obama was not in a hurry to promote this discovery either, so the Veil of Deceit was lowered by all. Just a guess, obviously. James Taranto offered similar dark speculations.
And left up in the air - presumably the CIA retained authority to detain captives temporarily pending a transfer to proper authorities. How long is "temporary", and might that be what was happening in Benghazi?
OOPS: From CNN, we are told that Gen. Petraeus had different talking points from Susan Rice. Also, gthe initial intel was confusing and Petraeus may have compounded the confusion in his first Congressional briefing:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus knew “almost immediately” after
the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi it was the work
of Ansar Al-Sharia, a loosely-formed group that has some members
sympathetic to Al Qaeda, according to a source who has spoken to him and
is directly familiar with his analysis of the situation.
According to this source, Petraeus says the stream of intelligence
from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the group
was behind the attack. But a separate stream of intelligence also
emerged indicating ongoing riots in Cairo over an anti-Islamic film
might have motivated the attacks.
The source says there were some 20 different intelligence reports
indicating the Cairo film might be responsible. The CIA eventually
disapproved all those reports, but not until after Petraeus’ initial
briefings to Congress in which he discussed all possibilities, the
source said. “All those other reports got disproved over time,” the
source says Petraeus told him.
Petraeus also believes confusion has emerged over two separate
intelligence questions. First, who was responsible, and second what was
the motivation of the attackers.
Petraeus’ aim in testifying, the source said, is in part to clear up
“a lot of misrepresentations of what he told Congress initially. He
wants to clear it up.” Petraeus is expected to tell Congress he had no
direct involvement in the talking points UN ambassador Susan Rice used
in the days after the attack. Petraeus developed unclassified talking
points that were approved by the intelligence community the source says.
Rice’s talking points may have used some of that information but were
separate from what Petraeus provided.
Recent Comments