Benghazi Talking Points Altered By Obama Administration Before Election

The Benghazi talking points written by the CIA were altered by the Obama administration before the election.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

The Benghazi witness whistleblower names have been released and they’re set to testify before Congress this coming Wednesday. Their allegations include the idea that the Accountability Review board (ARB) Benghazi report was a cover up set up by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to defend the Obama administration.

Even without the testimony of the Benghazi witnesses, emails detailing how the Benghazi talking points were altered have already been released. These emails were not supposed to be revealed due to a deal made in Congress in order to pass the confirmation of John Brennan. These emails detail some of the names of those wanting to rewrite the Benghazi talking points and the reasons why.

Before all the editing, the CIA and the White House knew the Benghazi compound was under attack and that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. Never mind, the Obama administration had hired groups tied to al Qaeda to defend Benghazi, most of whom conveniently disappeared right before the attacks. That’s right, we hired potential terrorists to defend us against terrorists while purposefully dropping internal security from 34 people to three.

The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of the Benghazi talking points as a response to requests from Congress. The Weekly Standard summarizes the primary points originally included in the Benghazi talking points:

“This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government ‘know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.’ That draft also noted that press reports ‘linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.’ Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and ’emphasizes the need for jihad.’ The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been ‘at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.’ ”

The CIA then amended the Benghazi talking points to include these salient facts: “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy” and “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.”

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland told the CIA to edit the Benghazi talking points because she was worried Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” But the CIA editing out specific references to terrorism was not enough. These emails detail how the “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” Ben Rhodes, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy, claimed any remaining issues with the Benghazi talking points would be resolved at a closed door White House meeting the next morning.

In response to White House concerns, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, edited the Benghazi talking points to simplify the message, remove more references to al Qaeda-linked terrorism and attacks, and insert a claim about a spontaneous demonstration that never occurred.

The story about the YouTube video was apparently added later by someone in the White House, although Victoria Nuland defended Ambassador Susan Rice for making the false claims. When it was proven these claims were untrue, the Obama administration cynically blamed the intelligence community for any faults. Some went along with this ruse, claiming that any Benghazi ties to al Qaeda wre new information even though it was known from the start. These statements went out under the name of James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, even though he was traveling at the time.

The House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on May 8 and they’re hoping to get the White House to release the rest of the emails in hopes that the full story comes to light. The Benghazi timeline already shows Charlene Lamb and Hillary Clinton having a hand in lowering internal security. Despite denials by Hillary Clinton, written documents bear Clinton’s signature. So far, based upon the available evidence President Obama himself has not been directly implicated in making any of these decisions, although many critics would like to speculate since these actions all directly benefited Obama during the 2012 Presidential Elections.

After considering all these facts, who do you think is responsible for forcing the editing of the Benghazi talking points?