Benghazi: How the Initial Intelligence Reports Were Changed

Hat tip Weekly Standard (and Squid)


Stephen Hayes writes in the Weekly Standard that the White House, CIA and State Department made changes to the initial intelligence assessment on the Benghazi attack to spread a false narrative. If true, this report is damning.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

"Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack."

Further...

"After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia." 

The report states that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised strong objections to the initial report on behalf of her superior(s). Who might that be?

"The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

Charlene Lamb-the deputy assistant secretary for embassy security in Washington (since reassigned) who was rejecting all those pleas for more security from the mission in Libya?


Could it be her boss, Asst Secretary of State for embassy security Eric Boswell? (Also reassigned).

Or could it be the then-Secretary of State herself, Hillary Clinton, who signed off on an email acknowledging the request for more security, but insisting that cuts would go forward-the same woman who told Congress under oath that the requests for security were never seen by her?



"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

If this report turns out to be true, it has to be a cover-up worse than Watergate-where nobody died.

That's what difference it makes.