You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa North
Top intelligence official backtracks on Libya story
2012-09-29
Clapper, Clinton and Rice must go.
The office of the United States' top intelligence official appeared to take the blame Friday for the Obama administration's changing narrative on the U.S. Consulate attack in Libya, saying administration officials who initially claimed the attack was spontaneous did so based on intelligence officials' guidance.

The statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, was put out late Friday -- at the close of a tumultuous week for the Obama administration over the Libya attack.
Always late on a Friday. Clapper is a disgrace at DNI. I'd suggest he should be fired, but if we remove his boss instead we can get rid of him, Hillary and Susan Rice at the same time.
Turner's statement marked a complete reversal from the initial claims.

"As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists," Turner said. "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."
Well it wasn't 'spontaneous, so it's all but self-evident, even to a Democrat, that somebody was in charge. Even OWS has a leader...
Turner, though, sought to explain that officials who discussed the attack as spontaneous did so based on intelligence community assessments.

"In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo," he said. "We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving."
So in other words you shot off your mouths first and then did an investigation. What a brilliant course of action for a career intelligence officer.
However, sources have told Fox News that intelligence officials knew within 24 hours the attack that left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead was terrorism, and that they suspected it was tied to Al Qaeda.

It's unclear, then, why the intelligence community told Executive Branch officials it was spontaneous.
Because that's what they were told to tell...
In the midst of the changing story, Republicans have complained that they
and everyone else
were misled by the administration. They pointed to briefings to lawmakers and comments made by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on five Sunday shows in which she claimed the attack was spontaneous, not pre-planned, and tied to the anti-Islam film.
Susan Rice lied. It's that simple. She's not going to get called on it unless Romney wins. Certainly the MSM won't hold her to account.
Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, told National Review that he thinks Rice should resign over the controversy.

"She is America's foreign policy spokesman to the world," King said. "The fact is she gave out information which was either intentionally or unintentionally misleading and wrong, and there should be consequences for that."

Meanwhile, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are raising questions about security at the compound in Benghazi. All members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote to the State Department on Thursday asking for additional details about security at U.S. diplomatic posts and for a fuller explanation of the attacks on U.S. compounds in Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News on Friday that no threat assessment was conducted before U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team began "taking up residence" at the Benghazi compound -- describing the security lapses as a "total failure."
Brilliant. No threat assessment for a consulate in the middle of a country that is still in the grip of a civil war. "Total failure" isn't strong enough.
The source told Fox News that there was no real security equipment installed in the villas on the compound except for a few video cameras.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, the intelligence source said the security lapses were a 10 -- a "total failure" because Benghazi was known to be a major area for extremist activity.

There had been four attacks or attempted attacks on diplomatic and western targets leading up to the Sept. 11 strike on the U.S. Consulate.
But it was all 'spontaneous, right Susan?
Based on that information, a former regional security officer for diplomatic security told Fox News, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had to have been classified or assessed by the State Department as a "critical threat terrorism or civil unrest posting."
It's a willful lapse of common sense and decency to do otherwise, but that's our current Foggy Bottom for you.
Fox News was told that State Department standards for diplomatic missions overseas dictate physical security standards for this classification. There are two sets -- classified and unclassified requirements. The unclassified standards include a 100-foot setback for the buildings from the exterior walls which should be three meters high, in addition to reinforced ballistic doors and windows which can withstand an hour of sustained assault. Based on the video and photos, none appear present at the consulate.

The former regional security officer, who has worked in the Middle East, told Fox News that the standards are designed to give an ambassador, his or her team and diplomatic security that "golden hour" to burn classified dockets and call in military help for an emergency evacuation.
Posted by:Steve White

#17  Does Dempsey drool and pant in anticipation of his next marching orders, or just duck, cover and cower under his desk?
Posted by: canalzone   2012-09-29 22:55  

#16  I generally default to what is not being said, or who is not discussing the issue.

Remember the first words after the attack: "Sensitive documents are missing from the consulate", "Lists of Libyans working with Americans", "This is a serious blow to US intelligence efforts in the region".

Replace 'consulate' with 'AGI' or "P-3'.

Most surprise attacks occur due to the target's arrogance, ignorance, or having placed trust in someone/something that betrays the target.If intelligence officials dissemble, it too is due to the officals' arrogance, ignorance, or their having placed trust in someone/something that betrayed them.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-09-29 18:41  

#15  WHY have we been asked to believe such a bald-faced lie?

Because experience taught them it'll work?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2012-09-29 15:34  

#14  And could that moron Brennan please be ordered to spend the rest of his life in the street somewhere with all those moderate islamists he believes in?
Posted by: M. Murcek   2012-09-29 13:25  

#13  Clap on! Clap off! The Clapper!
Posted by: M. Murcek   2012-09-29 13:23  

#12  The cone of silence? Strange, very strange.

The transmitters may be there but the receivers appear to be curiously silent.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-09-29 11:02  

#11  Pro, well, yeah, but not nearly in the quantity and quality we had believed (though those MAY be in Syria.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2012-09-29 10:06  

#10  .In 2001 Saddam's behavior was convincing that he had WMD..

Cause he did.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2012-09-29 09:40  

#9  because "I singlehandedly killed Osama" sounds a little hollow - as not just a lie, but boasting that got people killed?
Posted by: Frank G   2012-09-29 09:23  

#8  I generally default to what is not being said, or who is not discussing the issue.

Anyone hear anything from the dozens of personnel, walking wounded, or anyone else who got out of Benghazi prior to, during, or after the assault on the consulate? Any comments or questions from the families of the dead and wounded? No final head count? No medical reporting from Landstuhl Army Hospital? No harrowing details, no statements, no reporting, no questions, no WTF moments, no issues?

The cone of silence? Strange, very strange.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-09-29 08:17  

#7  Agreed, Besoeker, one should not assume those - which leaves us with the question of WHY have we been asked to believe such a bald-faced lie? I suppose it could be ascribed to stupidity of the liars or perceived stupidity of the lie-ees, but could there possibly be a REASON? (In 2001 Saddam's behavior was convincing that he had WMD but it may mainly have been an act because he was more afraid of Iran than the US (or they may be in Syria now, but that's a different theory.)) I know one is not supposed to ascribe to malice that which is as easily due to stupidity, but I still have concerns there is more than incompetence in play here, I just haven't come up with what it could be.
Posted by: Glenmore   2012-09-29 07:53  

#6  The Africa and Middle East RED LINE- wonder what would happen if a bunch of plans from the late 90's appeared with drawings from before events in Africa and the Levant and Balkans with dates etc! No Go they were told time is wasting kids!
Posted by: Angiting Snore1647   2012-09-29 07:51  

#5  Does anything think Ambassador Stevens, his consolute staff, or clandestine service personnel operating in the region failed to send a FLASH cable, or pick up an INMARSAT phone and immediately call Tripoli and or Washington when all of this started to go down?

Does any think that neighboring foreign missions and intelligence services did not report on what was taking place minute by minute?

Does anything think that National Intelligence Collection assets of the United States were caught totally unawares throughout the days leading up to, and following the initiation of this disaster?

No, no one should assume any of the above.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-09-29 07:42  

#4  ...and when the current administration is running up one trillion dollar annual deficits, it's clear where their priorities are, or rather, aren't.
Posted by: Raj   2012-09-29 01:42  

#3  I recently read an article that they spent almost 1 billion dollars rehabbing a mosque in Saudi Arabia in addition to other mosque projects (USAID through the State Dept.). I think that could have been used for security and have a lot left over for a party....
Posted by: tipover   2012-09-29 01:42  

#2  "Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State DepartmentÂ’s spending request for embassy security and construction"

The job of an executive is to prioritize expenditures when faced with the reality of limited funds. The current Administration is by no means the first to fail at that. But I'm sure the diplomatic lunches were accompaied by Camus wines or the like.
Posted by: Glenmore   2012-09-29 00:44  

#1  Another facet of the Washington Blame Game: Congress is responsible.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-09-29 00:20  

00:00