Posts Tagged ‘CIA station chief’

According To Mike Morell Testimony In Obama Admin, Professionals On Ground Useless While Analysts 1000s Of Miles Away Make Up ‘Facts’ In Vacuum

April 2, 2014

Why should professionals risk their lives out in the field to gather accurate information when analysts in offices thousands of miles away are going to completely ignore them anyway?

If you’re going to believe the testimony of the Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack, the answer is they shouldn’t bother.

You need to understand this: at this point, it is obvious to EVERYONE that when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and a host of other Obama types came out and said that the Benghazi attack that murdered the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter debacle in 1979 along with three other Americans was the result of a protest over a video rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, that they were NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Everyone on the ground, along with the CIA station chief’s report from the region (Tripoli), proclaims that the attack had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any video or any protest, and in fact explicitly denies that any protest was going on at the time of the attack.

So why the bogus talking points?

The House asked the man who prepared them.

It should be noted that this man who prepared them, former Deputy Director of CIA Mike Morell, has played a game of revolving chairs.  While Obama put one of his own damned LAWYERS into the job that Morell left, Morell suddenly joined Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  Oh, and took a cushy job with the mainstream media that has pathologically refused to ever once be fair or objective.  He was rewarded well for misleading and in fact betraying America, I assure you.

IF you believe that Morell was telling the truth and he did NOT cook the books in the form of the talking points that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney et al cited when they said over and over again that the Benghazi attack resulted from a protest over a video (even though it wasn’t), this is what you HAVE to now believe about the way Obama makes decisions about foreign policy: he makes them ENTIRELY based on what analysts sitting at desks thousands of miles away from what is happening write about.  He does NOT pay any attention to what the people on the ground say.  If the people on the ground at the scene say the opposite of what the analysts say, well, who cares?

Let me wrap this in a bow for you: as Deputy Director of the CIA, Morell had ALL the intelligence available to him.  That is why his office is charged with preparing the White House talking points memo to begin with.  Mike Morell KNEW what the CIA and military people on the ground watching the attack unfold were saying.

Again, that’s what you HAVE to conclude if Morell didn’t alter the talking points for political reasons.  He acknowledged that the professionals on the ground were screaming that the attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with any stupid video.  But he pointed out that none of that mattered because what mattered was what the analysts said and the analysts said that it was a video protest and so that’s what the Deputy Director of Obama’s CIA went with.  And it was nothing beyond a random coincidence that the bogus output of the analysts was exactly what the political aspirations of Obama needed.

Obama had been saying he’d decimated and wiped out al Qaeda.  He had been saying the war on terror was over and he’d won it.  He did NOT want to have to explain a terrorist attack against the United States and one of its ambassadors.

And so he didn’t.

Sadly, for Obama not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of making his personal politics trump national security, what we are instead being told is that Obama blatantly ignores the facts on the ground and instead trusts to the spin of theorists in Washington.

If that makes you liberals feel good about Obama, fine.  It makes me sick to my stomach either way.

What do I believe Morell did?  I believe he deliberately chose to ignore the facts being screamed from the ground and influenced his analysts to cook the books the way Obama wanted instead.

With Obama having gutted our military we are truly week.  With Obama ignoring the experts on the ground who are seeing the events unfold, we are truly blind.  And under Obama, the CIA is no more “independent” than his thug IRS.  Both agencies and numerous others are merely political wings of the Obama political machine rewarding Obama’s friends and punishing Obama’s enemies.

Advertisements

CIA Station Chief In Libya Reported Within HOURS That US Consulate Attack Was A TERRORIST Attack. So Why The Weeks Of LIES???

October 19, 2012

You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya.  A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack.  Here’s why:

Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades.  I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime.  And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.

What did Obama want to do?  How did he want to posture?  He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda.  “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over.  As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion.  And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.

But it didn’t.  Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans.  And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership.  We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world.  We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives.  In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate.  We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.

As bad as these things are, it gets worse.  Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal.  And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself.  In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered.  But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.

Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first.  Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.

The Obama administration trotted out the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to ALL FIVE major network political programs and had her tell what we now know to be an outright lie over and over and over again (see here for another link with more):

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Republicans called her dishonesty out from the moment she came out and so ridiculously lied that even Nancy Pelosi agreed that the Obama administration was completely full of crap.

An ad is pretty damning, as it packages up the lies told throughout the Obama administration rather concisely:

In hindsight, there can be absolutely no question that the Libyan president who called the attack what it was is far more trustworthy than the Obama administration.

We now know that there NEVER WAS a spontaneous protest in Libya prior to the terrorist attack.  And that Susan Rice directly lied to the American people.  We now know that murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens was BEGGING for more security for well over a month prior to the attack that was timed to commemorate the 9/11 attack anniversary.  We now know that there were ZERO Marines in Libya when we have Marines “guarding” many of the very safest and most secure embassies in the world instead.  We now have emails of the Obama administration via the State Department specifically rejecting those pleas for more security.  We now know that contrary to the deceitful Obama claims al Qaeda was GROWING rather than “being on the run.”  And we know now that when the Obama White House blamed faulty intelligence for their disastrous weeks of saying something that is now well-known to be a documented lie it was just another lie.

You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up.  And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”

Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack
By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The CIA  station chief  in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of  last  month’s deadly attack on the U.S.  Consulate that there was evidence it  was carried out by militants, not a  spontaneous mob upset about an  American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet  Muhammad, U.S. officials  have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw  the cable outside the CIA  at that point and how high up in the agency  the information went. The Obama  administration maintained publicly for a  week that the attack on the diplomatic  mission in Benghazi that killed  U.S. Ambassador Chris  Stevens and three other Americans was a result of  the mobs that staged  less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around  the 11th anniversary of the  9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those  statements have become highly charged political fodder as the   presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House  committee  questioned State  Department officials for hours about what GOP  lawmakers  said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist   Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday,  President Barack Obama and Republican  challenger Mitt Romney argued  over when Obama first said it was a terror  attack. In his Rose Garden  address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror  will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character  or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

But  Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call   the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the  president and  other key members of his administration referring at first  to the anti-Muslim  movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating  event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding  documents to show  what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during  and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack   probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked  group, with no public  demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary  RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of  war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The  officials who told the AP about the CIA  cable spoke anonymously because  they were not authorized to release such  information publicly.

Congressional  aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this  week to  build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare   that to what the White House was telling the  public about the attack.  That could give Romney ammunition to use in his  foreign policy debate  with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA  station chief in Libya compiled intelligence  reports from eyewitnesses  within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate  that indicated militants  launched the violence, using the pretext of  demonstrations against U.S.  facilities in Egypt  against the film to cover their intent. The report  from the station chief was  written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached  intelligence agencies in  Washington the next day, intelligence  officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points  sent by the CIA  to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi  were  spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S.  Embassy in Cairo and  evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by  the AP, added: “There are indications that  extremists participated in  the violent demonstrations” but did not mention  eyewitness accounts that  blamed militants alone.

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 from only 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,” and  it took until the following week to figure that  out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I  think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very  good  individual, put out some speaking points on the initial  intelligence  assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair  Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5  in California this  week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“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.

“How could they be so certain  immediately after such events, I just don’t  know,” he said. “That raises  suspicions that there was political  motivation.”

National  Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The  Office of  the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for  comment.

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 a 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.

Beyond  the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s  also  proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently   killed Stevens and his communications aide  or launched the mortars that  killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as  contract security guards at  a fallback location. That delay is prompting  lawmakers to question  whether the intelligence community has the resources it  needs to  investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight   against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials  say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi  militia, Ansar  al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but  is known  to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida  in the Islamic  Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan  locals  at the consulate during the  violence, and intelligence intercepts show  the militants were in contact with  AQIM militants before and after the  attack, one U.S.  intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence  has not been  able to match those reported sightings with the faces of  attackers caught on  security camera recordings during the attack, since  many U.S.  intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the  aftermath of the  violence, the two U.S. intelligence  officials said.

Nor  have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was   preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers  used,  setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the  backup compounds, then  attacking the main entrance to distract, while  sending a larger force to  assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may  prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to  bring about  relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a   post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is  so new  it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the  location of  U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs?  How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?

This was NOT the result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy.  Period.  The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed.  No.  You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.

I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media.  If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.

What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah.  Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean.  And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago.  And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.

The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged.  And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.