CIA Officer Says No Merits to Repubicans' Benghazi Charge

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 3:33 AM GMT
    NYT: In “The Great War of Our Time,” Michael J. Morell says there is “no evidence” to support the Republicans’ charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/world/middleeast/ex-cia-official-rebuts-republican-claims-on-benghazi-attack-in-the-great-war-of-our-time.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 6:37 AM GMT
    uh oh! uh no!
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 04, 2015 6:40 AM GMT
    Everyone--except the fringe Right--already knew this. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 8:48 AM GMT
    Ex-CIA official on CIA pension says CIA did nothing wrong.
    There is no reason why we shouldn't believe in everything this man says about the CIA icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 12:35 PM GMT
    AaronH20P saidEx-CIA official on CIA pension says CIA did nothing wrong.
    There is no reason why we shouldn't believe in everything this man says about the CIA icon_wink.gif


    "Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings"

    Sorry Aaron, but you are projecting your own grubby standards of morality onto others, again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 2:53 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    AaronH20P saidEx-CIA official on CIA pension says CIA did nothing wrong.
    There is no reason why we shouldn't believe in everything this man says about the CIA icon_wink.gif


    "Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings"

    Sorry Aaron, but you are projecting your own grubby standards of morality onto others, again.


    I guess you forgot to read the paragraph that comes right after that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 3:15 PM GMT
    AaronH20P said
    I guess you forgot to read the paragraph that comes right after that.


    Unlike you, I read it all and there is no basis on which to question Morell's integrity, which is what you did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 5:01 PM GMT
    This is a good example that headlines and the text can be used to distort the truth by stating some facts to imply that which is not true.

    From the article:

    "...no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” ..."

    That does not counter the claim that the White House spun the story independent of the CIA.

    The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack….

    That does not mean the attacks resulted from the demonstrations, which is what the White House alleged.

    But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm.

    The degree that the attackers were organized is not the point. They were organized enough to carry appropriate weapons. The degree of organization of the attack does not suggest the attack was carried out as a result of the demonstration, which might be inferred by some non-critical thinking readers.

    The real crux of the issue of the White House spin can be seen when looking at Morell's testimony to Congress:

    Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who also served a stint as acting director of Langley, is testifying before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today [4/2/14]:
    “The analysts said from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved in this attack,” Morell said - which the NY Times article conveniently did not mention.


    The bottom line is that the U.S. intelligence community knew from the “get-go” that al Qaeda was involved in the attack. And the Obama administration’s narrative, at first, excluded al Qaeda entirely [and emphasized the video as a smoke screen].

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cia-knew-al-qaeda-involved-benghazi-get-go_786435.html

    This is in contrast to the claims by Obama, Rice, and Clinton that the attack resulted from the video which makes a cause and effect claim. The charges against the administration including Clinton are not rebuked by the article, even though the NY Times makes an attempt to claim otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 5:10 PM GMT
    ^+1! Very logical, analytical, and well-written post! Splitting the whole mess into parts and attempting to debunk its disparate components one-by-one while ignoring the whole mass does not undermine the thrust of the scandal: that the DOS/SOS botched this affair, 4 Americans died, and the WH then sought to explain it all away by blaming it on a crackpot video, whether alone or in a concerted conspiracy w/ others. As even Billary said, but surely didn't intend in this context, "What difference does it [presumably referring to the cause of the assault and murders] make?"

    No, there's still more to this than meets the not-so-prying eye of the press and it all needs to come to light.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 5:25 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThis is a good example that headlines and the text can be used to distort the truth by stating some facts to imply that which is not true


    Where has anyone distorted the truth? There certainly has not been any Southbeach-style or Aaron-esque hyping of the story here (which shoddy practice you appear content to turn a blind eye to when they are at it).
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 04, 2015 5:28 PM GMT
    There were 13 "Benghazis" under Bush and 60 deaths. Where's the outrage and justice for them? They didn't even get an investigation!

    NEVER FORGET!

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 04, 2015 5:29 PM GMT
    I will NEVER FORGET!

    Poster_Terrorist-Attacks-Bush_Deaths-at-
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 5:30 PM GMT
    MGINSD said^+1! Very logical, analytical, and well-written post! Splitting the whole mess into parts and attempting to debunk its disparate components one-by-one while ignoring the whole mass does not undermine the thrust of the scandal: that the DOS/SOS botched this affair, 4 Americans died, and the WH then sought to explain it all away by blaming it on a crackpot video, whether alone or in a concerted conspiracy w/ others. As even Billary said, but surely didn't intend in this context, "What difference does it [presumably referring to the cause of the assault and murders] make?"

    No, there's still more to this than meets the not-so-prying eye of the press and it all needs to come to light.

    Thank you. I added the bolded text below to the post to further make a point.

    “The analysts said from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved in this attack,” Morell said - which the NY Times article conveniently did not mention.

    As I mentioned in another thread, within 24 hours, all parties involved knew the video played no role, yet 3 days later when the remains arrived, Hillary looked the next of kin in the eye and lied. Not surprising considering what we knew about her character, now reinforced by much new evidence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2015 5:57 PM GMT
    Socal. You might be taken more seriously if you started questioning some of the dubious news sources quoted on an almost industrial scale by Southbeach on this site and his regular misrepresentation of news stories (same goes for his kid brother, Aaron). Until then, your trying to pick journalistic holes in NYT articles will continue to look like RJ conservative sour grapes.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    May 04, 2015 8:40 PM GMT
    I'd really like to know why the US had an "embassy"/CIA outpost in Benghazi in the first place - that's the real story - running guns into Syria?

    don't tell me it was for the convenience of the US oil workers