The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya

Greg: There was no White House cover-up. There was incorrect assessment of what happened in Benghazi, based upon initial information that subsequently turned out to be incorrect.

…snip…

No Kool-Ade is being consumed over here.

Maybe you’re not drinking “kool-aid” (I so hate that tired expression…), but you may want to check your belly for damage after swallowing that hook, line and sinker.

Before you go out on a thin sapling, and definitively state there is no cover up, and that it was just mistaken intel, a few facts need to be acknowledged. Eli Lake, at the Daily Beast, has been doing some of the best reporting on Benghazi. And what we do know is that in the hours after the consulate attack, there were communication intercepts between Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb)…. in which the former was bragging about their success.

As reported by both Eli, in the link above, and even by MSNBC, the intel in the possession of the CIA indicated that the attack was, indeed, a plan by AQ affiliated militants, but that they had only decided to go ahead with it after watching the uprising in Cairo.

From Eli Lake, discussing how the CIA decided to construct their talking points from the intel:

The intelligence that helped inform those talking points—and what the U.S. public would ultimately be told—came in part from an intercept of a phone call between one of the alleged attackers and a middle manager from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s north African affiliate, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intercept. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

The MSNBC version:

CIA TALKING POINTS

The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers.

Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.

The report did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.

One official said initial reporting suggested militants had begun planning attacks on U.S. targets in Benghazi before September 11, but may well have decided to use the protests as a pretext for moving forward that day.

The CIA is overseen by both Congress and the Executive branch. In the latter, they report to the National Security Council, which includes the POTUS, the Veep, the SOS and the Defense Secretary.

So… we have the intel intercept that the attack was a plan that they decided to implement during the protests, possibly as cover or as an excuse.

This means one side is in error when they state the film is totally irrelevant, and the other side is in error with the claims the film is solely responsible. The fact is, it is both… a preplanned event that was given the green light under the cover of chaos.

Where’s the cover up? Greg, the CIA reports directly to Obama and Hillary. Who chooses how to construct the public talking points for this intel? Would Petraeus hold back intel and counsel from Hillary and Obama, and issue talking points without their guidance? Don’t think so. Especially with what we know of Petraeus. He’d be more likely to announce from the start that it was an act of terrorism, with details to come later.

Thus the reason you hear the criticism of intel being “cherry picked”. Obama, Hillary and peers decided to seize upon the green light of the film protest, and totally discard the confirmation that there was a planned attack on the shelf, ready to go.

And why would they leave out facts about a planned, AQ affiliated planned attack on Sept 11th? Political inconvenience during an election year. You can’t be touting that AQ is gasping for breath, or that the US is on top of terror attacks when the US just got successfully nailed on the 11th anniversary of Sept 11th.

This admin hasn’t thwarted squat. Fort Hood happened, despite warning signs. The Times Square and Christmas bomber? All stopped by alert citizens.

What is apparent is that the film was not only an excuse for Muslim protests, attacks and violence against US interests in over 40 nations, plus for Ansar al-Sharia, but for this WH administration as well. Each for their own, carefully crafted reasons.

Obama will, however, attempt to lay the blame for the talking points on the CIA. His lackeys are attempting that today, hoping that Petraeus will play the scapegoat. Hillary has no out. Which brings me to your comment:

So how do we reconcile House republicans’ sudden overwhelming concern about diplomatic security with their recent efforts to slash the State Department’s budget by 43 percent?

Quite simple. You cut the unneeded dead weight and non performers in the administrative positions. They are enjoying a robust budget now, and they are still ineffectual and dangerous idiots that refused to supply the needed security for a consulate in a hotbed area of militants that housed intel. There’s no way Hillary can escape her culpability here. She’s toast for any future political office. The only question is, will Obama kick her to the curb before the election to offset his own culpability?

What should be painfully obvious is that with a full budget, and plenty of staff, they are blundering idiots. Streamlining for efficiency, including the rolling of heads, is in order.