2/13/14

Last week was a week of bombshells.

The first relates to the publication by the CBO of their periodic Budget and Economic outlook 2014–2024. This was the subject of my previous blog.

The second bombshell and the subject of this blog is the astonishing news tucked deeply in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi that the former Deputy Director of the CIA is the one who KNOWINGLY changed the talking points from a “terror attack” to a “demonstration” gone bad.

As I said in my previous blog, the two bombshells have a few things in common:

  • They show the complete lack of understanding by this administration regarding the way the real world works. Be it in economics or national security, they both expose an unbelievable degree of naiveté, lack of experience, and bad decisions and policy that have and will continue to substantially weaken the USA.
  • They show the skilled and unscrupulous way in which this administration manipulates the truth, spins it, and brings the spin to the level of propaganda and misinformation. In this area they are masters—the world’s best. Once you peel all the layers of spin and misinformation, the truth comes out—this administration lies all the time. They are simply LIARS.
  • They show the amazing level of help this administration gets from the media—the media who are, to paraphrase the famous Churchill idiom, “lazy wrapped in ignorance inside complete negligence.”
  • They show the complete lack of eloquence on the Republican side. There is simply NO ONE there who can match or even come close to the administration in their ability to articulate their case and unfold the truth. It is simply so frustrating. They are amateurs.

The Benghazi attack occurred on Tuesday September 11, 2012.

On Sunday September 16, 2012, Susan Rice, then-US Ambassador to the UN, went on five Sunday talk-shows declaring the event to be a result of a spontaneous demonstration.

In the days between these two events the administration was busy preparing the talking points, the message that the administration was going to deliver on these shows. These talking points were being drafted amongst all the relevant bodies in the administration. It was a collaboration between the National Security Council, the White House, State Department, FBI, and CIA.

According to Fox News, the senate report concludes that on September 15, 2012, four days after the attack and the day before the now infamous Sunday talk show appearances, Michael Morell, then-Deputy Director of the CIA, twice edited the administration talking points to the extent of changing about 50 percent of the text. He deleted all references to Al Qaeda, to “Islamic,” to numerous prior warnings given by the CIA to the State department, and other terms that indicated a terror act. He did, however, leave or insert back to the talking points the “spontaneous demonstration” storyline.

He did that in spite of absolute and irrefutable data from the CIA’s most senior man on the field—the CIA chief of station in Libya who categorically told the CIA the day after the event that there was no demonstration. That supported the information that came from the State Department people on the ground and video evidence seen by all relevant people, including, one must assume, the CIA deputy director—no spontaneous demonstration. Not only that but presumably due to continued ramblings and public statements by the administration regarding the demonstration, the CIA chief of station saw fit to send another e-mail to his bosses at Langley, this one was sent on Saturday the 15th. In it he repeats the fact that the event was “not an escalation of protests.” (For more information, click here.)

So why did Morell, when faced with such irrefutable information, choose to change the talking points to make it look like a spontaneous demonstration?

When asked about it by the Senate in a hearing, he blamed the FBI. He said they wanted it that way. The FBI strenuously denied it and rebuked him for putting it on them.

All this is contained in the Senate bipartisan Intelligence Committee report (according to Fox News). Although the Senate Intelligence Committee is called “bipartisan” it is in fact currently controlled by Democrats. Indeed, the report was signed off on by all members of the committee but it contains an addendum minority report where the Republican members go much further than the main report, but it is not relevant here.

The important thing is that this committee, one of the more important committees of the Senate and one with a tradition of bipartisanship and responsibility, controlled by Democrats, unanimously concluded that Morell is the man who changed the talking points.

This raises a number of questions:

  • Who asked him to change these talking points?
  • Why did he change the talking points?
  • Why is he not saying who asked him to make these changes?
  • Why did all the other agencies bless the revised talking points, which they all knew were clearly misleading?
  • Why was Morell, the natural candidate, not even considered for CIA director position when that position opened few weeks later?
  • Why is Morell working now for one of Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers, having declared his political ambitions upon leaving the CIA shortly after all that occurred?
  • When is a coincidence too close to be believable?
  • Who benefited from the blatant lie foisted on the American people?

I do not have proof to support my answers to all these questions but given the facts and the entire circumstances, a very clear picture emerges.

The main benefactor of this misinformation was the President. This helped his reelection campaign. Was this the reason he won the elections six weeks later? There is never one reason but this confusion surely contributed to him winning.

The second beneficiary was Hillary Clinton whose personal responsibility for what has happened was being obfuscated and covered up by the fog of this misinformation exercise. Even now when the Senate report says that this event was PREVENTABLE and clearly lays the blame on not preventing it at the doorstep of the State Department, Clinton’s name is not mentioned.

But there are two more important questions that I would like answers for:

1. Why is Morell not brought up on charges of breach of duty at the very least, if not criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people?

Here is a man who holds one of the most important positions in the national security hierarchy of the country. Deputy CIA Director. Probably in the top ten most important people trusted with the defense of this nation. He has been found to deliberately and knowingly mislead the American public in the service of one or more political campaigns.

This is the biggest breach of faith and a huge scandal, and he should face criminal charges.

2. The biggest questions of them all is this: How can it be that no one, simply no one makes a big deal out of it?

With the exception of Fox News, NO ONE reported on this matter. Not ONE media outlet even referenced it. If you do a Bing search you get only two or three references to this story and they come from Fox and the Heritage foundation.

How come no one in the mainstream media thinks that such a huge breach of trust by a senior civil servant is worth mentioning?

You wonder how far the bias in the media can go.