CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

[courseofhistory]

THIS NEEDS TO BE SPREAD EVERYWHERE!

CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

...

Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The article points out the difficulty of piecing together fragments of information which I've been saying all along to the conspiricaly lunatics!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

[courseofhistory]

1. Also from the link...

It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”

[leveymg]

2. This contradicts Rice's statement, "not coordinated"

The problem with her statement is that it turned out to be wrong and was a slanted characterization of the sitation that lent the impression that there was no AQ problem in LIbya, which is inaccurate.

[John2]

3. The whole Problem with this

It is not her fault. It is not the President's fault either. They receive the information from the people gathering it. When you conduct an investigation, evidence can change.

Some people want to make it political. there is no good reason to conduct an investigation into an investigation that is ongoing. This is how ridiculous this is. Point one, Romney opened his trap right after the incident or even knowing anyone was killed. It was political from the beginning. Why did this video come out at this time? Romney defended it also and most people on the right. The video should be included in the investigation as well as the people who produced it. No good investigator would exclude it.

Issa and his buddy (congressman from Utah) launched this investigation. The congressman from Utah is connected to Mitt Romney's campaign which indicates a conflict of interest. There is also some reports about an ex Bush operative, obtaining possession of Chris Stephen's personal Diary and giving it to CNN. I have this question, why wouldn't Chris Stephen's Diary be evidence and turned other to the people conducting the investigation, instead of to CNN. And how did this alleged Bush operative get possession of it? It smells to me.

[leveymg]

5. I agree with you, and that ex-Bush operative may well be Cofer Black, ex-CIA, Blackwater Director.

Blackwater/Xe/Academi/(whatever it calls itself today) is all over the place in Libya -- and has been pushing for an extension and expansion of its State Dept. contract (see, http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/state-department-denies-holding-up-blackwater-liby ) -- and likely wants in on the arms and militant Jihadi to Syria pipeline. I can see them trying to muck-up the Ambassador's nuanced mission along with his reputation, as well as their trying to make hay over the alleged lack of diplomatic security.

In reality, the late Amb. Stevens had as much security as he felt comfortable with during his visit to Benghazi. He didn't have to be there, except there's something in Eastern Libya he felt he couldn't do from the embassy in Tripoli, which is secure. My guess is that has to do with the local militias, their looted weapons (particularly MANPADs), and the flow of arms and fighters to Syria.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Obama will make all of this clear on Monday night.