April 11, 2014

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Heritage Foundation expert Helle Dale reports on compelling new details about the Obama administration’s manipulation of the facts about the attack on America’s consulate in Benghazi, Libya:

The original CIA talking points on Benghazi were quite comprehensive and included information on al-Qaeda activity in the Benghazi area. In the interagency vetting process, however, this paragraph raised red flags at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, which had failed miserably at providing adequate protection against terrorists for U.S. diplomats stationed in Libya. Morell took it upon himself to edit out any reference to al-Qaeda, and blamed the attack on an anti-American demonstration. The remainder of the talking points was toothless pabulum.

So why did the CIA edit its talking points to remove on-the-groundintelligence? It may have been for political gain, Dale surmises:

 Politicization of the agency is certainly one possible answer, and a resurgence of terrorist activity did not suite the Obama administration—especially with a national election looming.

 Why do you think the CIA edited its Benghazi talking points?

Comments (9)

Linda - April 11, 2014

Just an opinion:
1. To align with election talking points
2. To try and set Hillary up for a 2016 win.
3. Too many Muslims in the White House.

dale swider - April 11, 2014

EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON IS DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HEAD MOBSTER IN CHARGE.

EKS - April 11, 2014

Navy officials have the information that the Obama administration planned a kidnapping of the Ambassador prior to the election, and was going to blame on the Al Qaida. Obama would then order Navy seals to rescue the Ambassador prior to the election, to insure his election. Something went wrong ,when the Navy Seals, who were not informed of the plan, arrived at the annex to protect the Americans . No arrest of the killers has been made, because by doing so, would expose the kidnapping plan of the Obama Administration and State Department (Clinton).

Charles Ormsby - April 11, 2014

The talking points were edited to absolve Hillary Clinton of responsibility for the disaster. If it was a reaction to a silly video, it could not have been predicted and her security decisions might be defended. If it was due to well known terrorist activities, her incompetence (or ideologically-driven decision making) is exposed. BTW, what crime did the video producer commit and is he still locked up for exercising his 1st Amendment rights??

Ronald Merriman - April 11, 2014

It seems quite clear to me that the White House saw the attack as an embarassment to the POTUS in light of his position that terrorism was on the run and the impact the truth would have on the election. Purely political. There should be a Special Council or Select Committee established to get to truth in this matter,.also for Fast & Furious AND for the IRS Scandal.

Ginna B.Kelly - April 11, 2014

Was there ever any question about it and by the way, we know at least three states that wee called and given to Obama were in fact, subtracting the double,and triple votes, won by Romney. What are we waiting for? Impeach the imposter!

Ellen Elmore - April 11, 2014

The CIA edited the Benghazi talking points for one main reason – to help Obama win the election. If the public had known the truth, Obama might have lost.

Jack Kinch(1uncle) - April 12, 2014

This administration tried to hide the truth about Benghazi for political reasons. Obviously, NOmobama was lying about Al Qaeda being on the run. Plus, lied to cover up Killary’s incompetence. She lied about Benghazi before Susan Rice lied. Another who cannot be trusted and a terrible choice for president

Holly Chapo - April 13, 2014

Telling the truth would have reflected poorly on the president’s re-election efforts and on Hilary’s aspirations. The truth would have demolished the president’s false belief that al-Quaeda had been decimated, that terrorism was no longer a threat. The truth would have shown how cynical about and indifferent he is to our Americans in dangerous situations. The truth would have had to include his whereabouts while the attack was occurring. The talking points were the tip of the iceberg and were altered to protect this dangerous excuse for a president.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>