“…And when (Obama) stands in front of the American people and offers the most amateurish of fibs, you know that it’s now not a matter of IF this is all going to come out, but merely WHEN.”
And here we go:
(From The Weekly Standard) – … The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”
The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”
But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”
Listen, it’s been obvious from the jump that the Administration was lying about Benghazi, and not even doing a particularly credible job of it. However, they were unshakable in their insistence to the contrary. The only reason it’s gone on this long is that the Network press clamped down on the story, leaving it solely to talk radio, Fox News and conservative blogs.
But now? Now, the information dam has cracked. An old expression about putting a genie back into a bottle comes to mind, as well.
…according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.
What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists”.
Please, please, please: go to the piece at The Weekly Standard for the rest of this (there’s a bunch), including the actual version drafts mentioned above. I’m guessing Fox News will have video to post sometime soon, which we’ll put up as soon as it becomes available.
***UPDATE: As expected, Fox’s video report on this is up!