The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.
... In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m. that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
... At 6:21 p.m., then-National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor e-mailed the CIA Office of Public Affairs saying that Principal Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, who has since become the White House chief of staff, had asked that “highlighted portions” of the draft be “coordinated with the State Department in the event that they get inquiries.”
The highlights indicated that McDonough’s main concern was the information about the prior CIA warnings to U.S. diplomatic missions in North Africa — information that was included at Petraeus’s request.
... At 7:39 p.m. Friday, Victoria Nuland, then the State Department’s chief spokesperson, e-mailed deputy national security adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes, Jake Sullivan, director of policy planning at State, and CIA spokesman Shawn Turner, among others, with “serious concerns” about including Ansar and mentioning “warnings” in the talking points.
Nuland said the mention of the warnings “could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”THE CORE PROBLEM IS THEREFORE THREE-FOLD:
1 - THE STATE DEPARTMENT WANTED TO PREVENT JUSTIFIABLE CRITICISM OF THEIR FAILURE TO PROTECT THE FACILITY ANF THE AMBASSADOR. (AND BY EXTENSION JUSTIFIABLE CRITICISM OF HILLARY.)
2 - THE CIA WANTED TO PROTECT THE SECRECY OF THEIR MISSION IN BENGHAZI - AND WE STILL DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY WERE (ARE!?) UP TO).
3 - THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO PROSECUTE THE TERRORISTS BEHIND THE ATTACK AS CRIMINALS, AND NOT AS ENEMY COMBATANTS IN A WAR - (AS THEY ARE TREATING OSAMA'S SON-IN-LAW, RIGHT NOW).
I WROTE ON 5/16/13 THAT A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WAS OBAMA'S JURIS-PRUDENTIAL APPROACH TO THE ENEMY:
THE MAJOR REASON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION GIVES FOR SCRUBBING REFERENCES TO AL QAEDA AFFILIATES OUT OF THE TALKING POINTS WAS THAT THEY "DIDN'T WANT TO PREJUDICE THE FBI INVESTIGATION."
THE ONLY REASON AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS IMPORTANT TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES VIEW ISLAMO-TERROR AS A CRIMINAL ACT, AND NOT AS AN ACT OF WAR - EVEN WHEN IT KILLS OUR AMBASSADOR AND HIS AIDES!
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG POLICY.
AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO PREVENT THE BENGHAZI ATTACK, OR TO COUNTER-ATTACK WHILE IT WAS ON-GOING, AND THEIR FAILURE TO COUNTER-ATTACK TO THIS DAY PROVES IT IS A WRONG POLICY AND A BAD POLICY AND AN INEFFECTIVE POLICY
AL QAEDA AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE NOT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES.
THEY ARE PARAMILITARY GROUPS AT WAR WITH US.
WE SHOULD FIGHT BACK ACCORDINGLY.
NOT WITH THE FBI.
NOT WITH INDICTMENTS.
BUT KINETICALLY, WITH ANY AND ALL WEAPONS THAT WILL ERADICATE THE ENEMY.WE SHOULD FIGHT BACK ACCORDINGLY.
NOT WITH THE FBI.
NOT WITH INDICTMENTS.
BUT KINETICALLY, WITH ANY AND ALL WEAPONS THAT WILL ERADICATE THE ENEMY.NOT WITH THE FBI.
NOT WITH INDICTMENTS.
BUT KINETICALLY, WITH ANY AND ALL WEAPONS THAT WILL ERADICATE THE ENEMY.NOT WITH INDICTMENTS. BUT KINETICALLY, WITH ANY AND ALL WEAPONS THAT WILL ERADICATE THE ENEMY.
OBAMA'S APPROACH TO TH GLOBAL WAR AGAINST JIHADISM HAS BEEN A FAILURE: ISLAMISTS ARE GAINING IN AFGHANISTAN IRAQ, SYRIA, LIBYA, AND OF COURSE EGYPT. AND MORE US SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN KILLED UNDER OBAMA THAN WERE KILLED UNDER BUSH'S 8 YEARS. AND WE HAVE HAD MORE ATTACKS HER AT HOME.
WE ARE LESS SAFE AND WE ARE LOSING.
WE NEED TO END THESE POLICIES.
AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.
No comments:
Post a Comment