Can We Expect Intelligence from the Director of National Intelligence?
November 29, 2012 - 7:51 am
I’m still trying to get my head around a glaring issue related to the Benghazi attack. On the subject of who changed the CIA’s talking points regarding the attack, how can we not know who did it?
The attack occurred on 9-11-12, right? According to Gen. David Petraeus, the Central Intelligence Agency initially assessed the attack as a terrorist strike carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan offshoot of al-Qaeda. But despite that initial assessment, Petraeus, then head of the CIA, told Congress on 9-14 that the attack had started with a protest about a movie. Why did Petraeus say that?
On 9-14, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed the movie in her address at the transfer of remains ceremony. Why did she do that?
On 9-16, Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the attack on a protest when she appeared on five Sunday political shows. Why did she do that? Who changed both Rice’s and Petraeus’ talking points during the five days from the attack to Rice’s star turn?
For about ten days after Rice’s five-spot, President Barack Obama continued to blame a movie and dodge the possibility that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He blamed the movie six times during his address at the United Nations on 9-26. Why did he do that?
We’re told now that someone within the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper changed the talking points. We’re told that that person was not Clapper himself. The DNI’s office is apparently at a loss to determine who did change the talking points.
How is this possible?
These are intelligence agencies and officers we’re talking about. They exist to investigate things. They exist to obtain information amid the most difficult circumstances in the most hostile places on earth. They also exist to sniff out and stop agents from within who are operating on our enemies’ behalf.
Supposing that the talking points weren’t changed to shore up the Obama campaign’s line that “al-Qaeda is on the run,” does not the changing of the talking points raise the possibility that we have an enemy agent working high up in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence? Is it not possible that this agent is so influential that their handiwork comes out of the mouth of no less than the president, his top diplomats, and his CIA chief?
In fact, isn’t the possibility that someone changed the talking points to help Obama’s re-election the most benign explanation available? Isn’t there a much darker and more dangerous possibility lurking behind the author of the changes?
Instead of looking at the possibility that we have a dangerous enemy mole lurking within the nation’s intelligence stovepipe, we’re told that the top intelligence office in the most powerful nation on earth cannot determine who changed a set of talking points in Washington, D.C., during a span of five days.
Is this a believable defense?
Shouldn’t we expect more capability than this from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence?