The Benghazi File

That good authority is nothing less than a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, D-CA, a committee that held hearings on the Benghazi incident in Nov. He states, "Rice's now-famous talking points were prepared by the intelligence community at the request of the House Intelligence Committee so we could understand the limits of what we could share publicly without compromising classified information. These talking points represented the collective assessment of more than a dozen intelligence agencies in the early days after the attack. There were multiple and conflicting strains of information, so the talking points were carefully worded to reflect the fluidity of the situation. While changes were made to protect classified sources, the testimony of acting CIA Director Michael J. Morrell and former CIA Director David H. Petraeus made it clear there was neither political spin nor interference from the Oval Office. "

Schiff continues, "In fact, the White House has confirmed the only change it made to the text was to replace 'consulate' with 'diplomatic facility'. Hardly earth-shattering."

He adds, "So what about the revelation that Petraeus knew it was terrorism from day one? Not much of a surprise there: Everyone understood that firing rocket-propelled grenades and mortars at an American diplomatic post was an act of terror. While many point to Petraeus' conclusion that terrorists were involved, they seem to ignore another key early conclusion - he also believed that protests in Benghazi preceded the attack."  [Emphasis is mine] 

The President stated on Sept. 12 that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

Let's return to the three Senators on the CNN report. According to the article, McCain said, "It was clear that the information that she gave the American people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video." McCain added, "There was compelling evidence at the time that was certainly not the case, including statements by Libyans as well as other Americans who are fully aware that people don't bring mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to a spontaneous demonstration."

The first statement relies on one sentence out of Rice's comments while excluding everything else she said. It is out of context, oblivious to the known intelligence at the time, and relies on judgment based on hindsight. In other words, the information we know now is as a consequence of the FBI investigators the President sent to Libya. Rice is being stoned due to the revelations of the President's own investigative team, not anything the Republicans dug up. That is just about the most contrived conspiracy you can get.

His second sentence nearly mirrors what Rice said.

According to the CNN report, "Graham, speaking after McCain, said he was 'more disturbed now than I was before that 16 September explanation about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya, by Ambassador Rice.'" Graham has never specifically explained that remark. That is typical Graham. He talks, but does not say anything.

He then foolishly adds, "I think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight was clearly completely wrong." [Emphasis is mine] Did Graham just prove my point?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded with a defense of Rice: "The focus on -- some might say obsession on -- comments made on Sunday shows seem to me and to many to be misplaced. 

"There are no unanswered questions about ambassador Rice's appearance on Sunday shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community," he said at a recent White House briefing for reporters. "Those questions have been answered." Again, the emphasis is mine.

It is time to reveal what Rice actually said on Sept. 16^th as opposed to what her GOP detractors, actually three Republican Senators, said she said. The mass media has cooperated with the GOP on this matter because their advertisers love a conspiracy, even a contrived one. Once again, where used, emphasis is mine. The source is the conservative Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/

"Well, Jake, first of all , it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired. 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. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there. So we'll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions."

The WSJ continued:

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

MS. RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).