HatTip to Senator Lyndsey Graham who finally points out the primary problem with the White House hiding behind the CIA angle to the Benghazi story.
As we pointed out the White House in general, and President Obama specifically, intentionally shifted the deflection narrative to hide behind the CIA, and secrets, with the Benghazi story. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were utilized along with CNN’s Suzanne Kelly to claim the State Department was a cover story for the CIA activity on the ground. In essence the White House claimed that the CIA was in control of Benghazi operations INCLUDING THE SECURITY.
The White House and Administration used the New York Times, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal to sell their spin. But we, along with many others including Bing West, were not buying it. As Bing West wrote:
[…] Identical stories appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The Times explained that, “The account, given by the senior officials who did not want to be identified, provided the most detailed description to date of the C.I.A.’s role.”
So what’s going on here? The national-security staff in the Obama White House has a standard operating procedure. If a military action, such as killing bin Laden, succeeds, then immediately leak selected details to shape the narrative to the political advantage of Mr. Obama. If the action is botched, as in Benghazi, then say nothing and tell the quiescent press that there is no story worth pursuing. If questions persist, the second line of defense is an investigation that wlll drag on for months. For instance, bureaucrats in the Justice Department are still investigating the leaks last spring about the U.S. cooperation with Israel in the software sabotage — cyber warfare — of Iranian centrifuges.
If pesky Fox News persists in asking questions, then the third line of defense is to give the nod to the CIA to leak a diversionary story to favored news outlets and reporters. Thus the leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times showing that CIA operatives did try to rescue their comrades. Then authorize the CIA to go public with the same timeline, further throwing the press off the trail. The New York Times, the recipient of record for White House leaks, published on November 3 a diversionary story on its front page, fixating upon the CIA director, General Petraeus. This implied that the main issue about Benghazi centered around CIA secrecy — a tautology irrelevant to the real cover-up.
The intent is to cause the press and the public to lose interest in a story that seems exhaustively repetitive, while the key issues are never addressed.
Finally a reporter asked Senator Lyndsey Graham why he was fixated on this being an issue and why the CIA control was not good enough for him, because of his request for a “special committee” to begin hearings.
Lyndsey Graham points out the obvious. I paraphrase:
If the CIA was in charge of the Benghazi operation, and the CIA was in charge of the security, as the White House would have you believe, THEN WHY DID THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND NOT KNOW THAT?
Why were the people on the ground asking for more security specifically from the State Dept? If the CIA was in charge, the people on the ground carrying out the operation sure as hell were not aware of that, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR STEVENS, who in his last cable had stated he was not comfortable with security and requested additional protection for their endeavors FROM THE STATE DEPT. NOT THE CIA.
Thank You Lyndsey Graham for pointing out the key issue we have been trying to hammer home. The CIA angle was, and is, a cover story, only a cover story, and completely a cover story to protect the Obama Administration.
Remember the al-jazzera reporter who found copies of Ambassador Stevens requests on October 26th? Just laying around….? And people were wondering why the FBI did not find them after they “supposedly” conducted their ground investigation. Remember that?
Well, why the heck would they take such evidence when it completly contradicted the story the FBI (Mueller) and the Administration (Panetta/Obama) were selling.? Of course they would not pick up such e-mails and cables as evidence – Requests to the State Dept. sure dont add up to the BS CIA story the administration was trotting out, do they?
Now read this again from CIA Director General Petraeus: