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?