The Scapegoats at State

“It’s not the military’s job to protect diplomats; it’s the host government’s.  But in the absence of a real government, we never asked the question, ‘So how do we do this?'”

A “senior Pentagon official” quoted in the NYT, “4 Are Out at State Dept. After Scathing Report on Benghazi Attack,” Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt

I am tired of these insulting and infuriating whitewashes like the Pickering-Mullen Benghazi report that merely create scapegoats without addressing the real issues and speaking the honest truth.  I’ve seen too many of these in my lifetime, going back to the Warren Commission.

The truth is that why they call a “diplomatic compound” in Benghazi was just cover for the extensive CIA operation there.  To explain why there were so many Americans running around, we had to pretend to have a diplomatic presence.  When you join the CIA, you know that if you get into trouble overseas, you’re probably on our own because you’re not supposed to be there.

The four State Department officials who have now lost their jobs had no control over the CIA’s activities in Benghazi.  They couldn’t adequately protect diplomats in countries like Libya that don’t have a real government.  It was up to officials above their pay grade to decide what our diplomatic and intelligence presence would be in both Tripoli and Benghazi, and how we would protect those people.

Ambassador Stevens probably shouldn’t have been in Benghazi at all, but he sure as hell shouldn’t have been there on 9/11.  He had many friends there, but he also knew it is one of the major terrorist centers in the world right now.

Why isn’t anyone complaining that the Pentagon’s Africa Command, which is responsible for Libya, is the only one of our commands without a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force (CIF), which is designed to send special forces quickly in an emergency?

WSJ Says CIA Watered Down Rice

The Wall Street Journal — no friend of President Obama’s — is reporting* that the CIA removed the reference to Al Qaeda in the talking points Susan Rice used on the Sunday talk shows:

“The officials said the first draft of the talking points had a reference to al Qaeda [as former CIA Director Petraeus told Congress], but it was removed by the Central Intelligence Agency, to protect sources and protect investigations, before the talking points were shared with the White House.  No evidence has so far emerged that the White House interfered to tone down the public intelligence assessment, despite the attention the charge has received.

“The 94-word intelligence summary emerged from a daylong email debate between more than two dozen intelligence officials, in which they contested and whittled the available evidence into a bland summary with no reference to al Qaeda….”

Then why have Rice do the talk shows at all?  Better to say nothing than to offer disinformation.

* “Bureaucratic Battle Blunted Libya Attack ‘Talking Points,'” Siobhan Gorman and Adam Entous

 

It’s War

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) will block a Rice nomination for Secretary of State if Obama chooses to proceed:  “I would place a hold on anybody who wanted to be promoted  for any job who had a role in the Benghazi situation.

The battle against Rice has led to charges of sexism and racism.  That’s why they’re putting a New Hampshire woman out front, to try to deflect those charges.  Both McCain and “Butters” Graham are male, obviously, plus Butters is from South Carolina.

Quotes of the Day

“We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got, and some that we didn’t get, concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate.”

Sen. John McCain after meeting about Benghazi with Ambassador Susan Rice, who was accompanied by Michael Morell, acting director of the CIA.

Senators Lindsey “Butters” Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also were there, so the GOP had the gay and female demographics covered.

Butters said, “The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before.”

This meeting was supposed to smooth the way for Obama to nominate Rice as Secretary of State.  Looks as if O still has a fight on his hands.

Obama needs to address Benghazi himself.

They Don’t Get a Vote

Ninety-seven GOP House members have written to President Obama opposing his possible choice of U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State because of Benghazi and her now-infamous talking points.  Only the Senate gets to vote on the nomination, and so far only John McCain and Lindsey “Butters” Graham have said they would filibuster a Rice nomination.

Having chosen Sarah Palin as his Veep, I think Johnny Mac is forever barred from calling anyone “unqualified.”  He obviously didn’t recognize “unqualified” when it showed up at his ranch winking at him and flashing a little cleavage.

It Just Doesn’t Make Sense

From “Petraeus Says U. S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack,” Eric Schmitt, NYT:

“David H. Petraeus…told lawmakers on Friday…that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.”

But the local Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia proudly announced they had carried out the attack just a few hours after it happened.  So just in case they thought we didn’t know, they told us.  You can’t tip off someone when they are publicly boasting.

The other aspect of Petraeus’ argument that makes no sense is that the original talking points that referenced Al Qaeda were drafted by intelligence professionals and later changed to say “extremists” by “someone outside the the intelligence community,” according to Congressman Peter King (R-NY).

Petraeus’ claim would be much more credible if some political, diplomatic, or military person wrote talking points saying Al Qaeda, and the intelligence community changed them.  But here we have the reverse.

 

Petraeus at Congress

Gen. Petraeus testified for about four hours today to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session.

He told them what we already know, that the Benghazi attacks on our Consulate and our CIA building on 9/11 were terrorist attacks by a local extremist group linked to Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia.

Petraeus said the CIA gave the White House information that was different from what Rice said on five Sunday talk shows.

At some point, the language in the CIA’s talking points was changed from “Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals” to “extremist organizations.”  Neither Petraeus nor Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who both testified yesterday, said they knew who changed those talking points.

Rice had both classified and unclassified information.  Officials with access to both obviously aren’t going to divulge the classified stuff on Sunday talk shows.

But it seems to me they shouldn’t have had her appear at all rather than sell an explanation the Administration knew not to be true.  Or she should have been more non-committal and not pushed the whole spontaneous demonstration/anti-Mohammed YouTube video thing.  You have to walk a fine line between spilling your guts and lying.

If the Al Qaeda reference was considered classified information at that point and was changed for national security reasons, that’s okay.

But if it was taken out for political reasons, that’s very different and very wrong. If the Administration deleted the Al Qaeda reference because they thought it hurt Obama’s re-election argument that he had Al Qaeda on the run, that it would detract from his getting bin Laden, that’s both shameful and stupid.  Americans know that Al Qaeda still exists and remains a threat to us.

 

 

They’re Just Showboating on Benghazi

John McCain has been waaaaay out in front of the 9/11 Benghazi murders, denouncing Obama both on the Senate floor and in the media and demanding Watergate-style hearings.

But if he’s so interested in getting to the bottom of what happened, why did he fail to attend yesterday’s classified Senate briefing by administration officials?  Wouldn’t that be a good place to start?

The older Johnny Mac gets, the more pathetic and Palin-like he becomes.

He has no interest in getting to the truth, just in getting publicity and getting back at the guy who defeated him.

 

 

Petraeus to Testify Friday

Gen. Petraeus will testify on Friday in a closed-door session before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the Benghazi terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

So much for the phony right-wing outcry that he resigned as CIA Director when he did to avoid having to testify.

I’m sure Fox News will apologize for misleading their viewers…

Tell Us How You Really Feel, Butters

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.  I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack.”

GOP South Carolina Sen. Lindsey “Butters” Graham