Benghazi Cover Up Began at the Highest Levels – Update

0
Share

Benghazi

Update: 10:48: The three whistleblowers who will testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

Mr. Hicks was second-in-command to Ambassador Stevens and was on the phone with him shortly before he died.

Eric Nordstrom has already testified.

Read at Fox News

 

Original Story: 4/4/13: Benghazi was a long time ago as Jay Carney said. He failed to add that the administration stonewalled the investigation for the eight months since the attack, but then, as Hillary Clinton said while reading from her notes, what difference…does it make? Perhaps Mrs. Clinton should ask the family of the victims who are deceased and the victims who survived why it matters.

Of course the House can’t speak with the survivors because the administration has blocked it and threatened survivors into silence according to reports by survivors.

Two days ago, the FBI finally released photos of three suspects in the Benghazi attack. They are suspects because they were in the consulate at the time of the attacks. They waited eight months to release the photos. If you look at the photos, you can understand why.

The suspects  pictured below, we are told to believe, were upset over an obscure video that poked fun at Mohammad. As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “Do they look like protesters to you?” The FBI has these photos on the day of the attack.

Had we seen these photos earlier, what effect would it have had on the narrative that there was no attack?

benghazi_images

Oh, but it was so long ago and what difference…does it make?

Benghazi is about to blow up. Survivors will be speaking, as early as this week. The House released a bombshell report and the Inspector General, Obama’s not so nonpartisan appointee, is re-examing their own whitewashed report.

Stephen Hayes released a story on Benghazi in advance of the May 13 publication of The Weekly Standard which uses the information in the House report to expose the lies and cover up with new information and some of the names of the people at the top who engaged in the cover up.

The Weekly Standard  obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and have secured additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

The talking points were changed in one day, the day before Susan Rice’s infamous appearances on the Sunday News Shows. The discussions about the talking point changes involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

The explosive emails were given to the House for a brief time and were not allowed to be used during the hearings. The emails explain why the talking points were changed. They further stated that a major rewrite would take place by senior officials on September 15th.

In order to mislead the public, senior administration officials engaged in the wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi.

As the fighting took place, senior officials knew of likely al Qaeda involvement. A cable sent by a station chief in Libya confirmed they were Islamic militants. This is what the administration sought to obscure.

The initial internal CIA draft confirmed it was an attack by militants, most likely Ansar al Sharia. It stated that Ansar al Sharia aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The draft goes on to talk about the five other attacks in the six months before, raising the specter of a consulate under Jihadist surveillance.

The draft was further amended to add the warnings about this eventual attack. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”  The agency added by late afternoon: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.”

That information was cleansed. CIA officials removed references to “Islamic extremists” and “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda.” The initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”

The Talking points were distributed Friday morning and within an hour a Senior State Department official, *Victoria Nuland, expressed concerns. She did not want the State Department criticized.

The CIA cut out all references to Ansar al Sharia.

Nuland said her superiors were not happy. She said that the State Department was contacting National Security Council officials directly. The response: “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.”

Top administration officials planned to meet the next morning at the White House.

**Mike Morell is believed to have cut out the meat of the Talking Points at this White House meeting. Attacks became demonstrations, though they knew there was no demonstration, and the rest was boilerplate.

None, NONE of the drafts of the Talking Points mentioned a video. Even so, officials including President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton talked about the youtube video. Obama addressed it repeatedly, even at the UN, and again in an ad in Pakistan with Hillary Clinton that caused anti-America riots. A man is in jail over the video as Hillary Clinton promised Ty Woods father he would be.

On September 17th, Victoria Nuland praised the previous day’s performance by Susan Rice, saying that she presented the facts as we knew them to be at the time.

On September 28th, the intelligence community said they provided the information used by Susan Rice that the video spurred a spontaneous demonstration. They implied that they found out later it was al Qaeda and the revision to reflect this came later. The statement did NOT come from James Clapper but from spokesperson ***Shawn Turner.

“As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.”

The story doesn’t end here. This is the beginning. In addition to whistleblowers coming out as early as next week, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will meet on May 8 and they will ask for all the emails to be released as they seek further clarification of where the changes originated.

Notes:

*Victoria Nuland is spokesperson for the Department of State.

**Mike Morell is the  Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

***Shawn Turner is Director of Public Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

 

Share