CIA knew deadly assault on US consulate was a terror attack just 24 hours later (so why did White House officials maintain it was a violent protest for a week?)

Saturday, Oct 20 2012

  • The revelation is surprising as the Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack was a result of the mobs
  • 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

By Jill Reilly

PUBLISHED:10:01 EST, 19 October 2012| UPDATED:10:01 EST, 19 October 2012

The U.S government was told within 24 hours of the deadly  attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that there was evidence it was carried out  by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an anti-Islam video.

The assault, on the anniversary of September 11 last month, left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials dead.

The revelation could be damaging as the Obama administration maintained  publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission was a result of the mobs.

Revelations: Washington was told 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 ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad

Knowledge: 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

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.

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 Republican 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.

Last week, the State Department said  that it never believed the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate was the result of a protest over an anti-Islam movie, contradicting  previous statements.

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 Rodham Clinton  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 with 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, Virginaia, 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 only from 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.’

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress.

‘The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,’Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff 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, 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.’

Categories: Benghazi, Extremism, Petraeus Compromise, Societal, Strange Behavior - Of Leadership Roles

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: