Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:00 AM
still_one (31,744 posts)
To all who have been repeating fox talking points: "New Benghazi Account Bolsters CIA"
Intelligence officials have disclosed a new detailed timeline of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, acknowledging the CIA played a greater role in responding to the attack than has previously been disclosed. A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders "to stand down in providing support," as had been suggested in media reports.
The timeline provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official gives the first precise account of how CIA security teams provided the first response to the Sept. 11 attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The attack has become a political hot potato in the presidential campaign, with conservatives accusing the administration of not being transparent. The State Department has previously released a detailed account of the night's events, but did not acknowledge a CIA role in the response. The timeline given by a senior Intelligence official confirms that the facility previously described by the State Department as an annex, was in fact, a facility housing CIA security officers. It does not provide any additional details on the current intelligence assessment that the attack was an opportunistic result of earlier protests that day outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo over an anti-Muslim movie.
The official says there was "no second guessing" of those on the ground in Libya by senior officials either in Libya or Washington.
"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," said the official. The official's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to "stand down" from providing security support to the consulate.
2 replies, 566 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
To all who have been repeating fox talking points: "New Benghazi Account Bolsters CIA" (Original post)
Response to still_one (Original post)
Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:42 AM
UTUSN (37,137 posts)
1. R#3 & K for, thanks for this, it's already on its way to the local radio wingnut
who has been yammering DAILY with his Libya OBSESSION.
Here's what I said:
...oh look, the “annex” was actually a CIA outpost and the CIA security people were NEVER told to STAND DOWN. Not that this will faze your IDEOLOGICAL mission, as opposed to EDUCATIONAL mission. So in the CBS article I sent you before, in which PETREUS was totally in sync with the Admin in his testimony before the congress critters’ hearing, the FACT ARTICLE you of course ignore, what you IDIOTS choose to ignore is that “security” also means not BLABBING stuff just because you wingnuts want to score treasonous points.
Response to UTUSN (Reply #1)
Fri Nov 2, 2012, 11:26 AM
UTUSN (37,137 posts)
2. Here's the previous CBS article about PETREUS testifying in sync with the Administration
Sunday, John Mc5PLANES (McCAIN who crashed about 5 planes) was whining that the requests for security were so known that the ambassador had "even" told HIM about it, so it stands to reason that Mc5PLANES did NOTHING!1
And the key meme of the day is: "Somebody told me this is as bad as Watergate, well, nobody DIED in Watergate."
I don't know why Mc5PLANES and GINGRICH are seen as desirable guests for media yakking.
Wingnuts are pinning their hopes on PETRAEUS, but PETRAEUS has Romnesia!1
Wingnut outlets are aflood with hopes that PETRAEUS is “throwing OBAMA under the bus” and that he says “It wasn’t me” (who supposedly denied requests for help.
Well, that wasn’t what he was saying when he sent early briefings to Congress critters or when he testified, and a Rethug critter says there was no daylight between what he and what the Administration were saying at the time.
But the backdrop for all of their faux outrage is: TeaBagger congress critters blocked funds for State security since 2010. RAYGUN cut and ran when 299 marines & other personnel were bombed in Beirut; should he have FORESEEN it or responded in kind within an HOUR?!1 Besides that he negotiated with and armed terrorists. The Cuban 1st generation Exiles/CIA-ers hated JFK/Dems for their claims for military air support. VFW bars were frequent scenes of ground combat vets griping against Air Force vets for generically/anecdotally not providing air support upon IMMEDIATE demands.
CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP (my/UTUSN edit:: “But...”)
AP/ October 19, 2012, 5:18 AM
.... Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
U.S. intelligence officials say in this case, the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that it "was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd." ....
"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.
"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill. ....
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed. ....