Read the latest from Joshua Pundit:
According to CBS, its now leaked out that the editing of the CIA memo and talking points calling the 9/11 Benghazi debacle a terrorist attack carried out by al-Qaeda affilites was done in the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), run by Obama Appointee James Clapper :
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes. …
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.
“The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to. …
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.
You might remember James Clapper as the man who once called the Muslim Brotherhood 'a secular organization'.
The report is pretty careful not to actually say it was Clapper who edited the CIA memo, but if not him, who else could it have been? Some low level aide or staffer? And if it was done with the agreement of the FBI and CIA, why is General Petraeus saying publicly that he has no idea who redacted his memo?
The explanation now being given for the selective editing was that the link to Al-qaeada was “too tenuous.”
Yet, General Petraeus, a military man, knew “almost immediately” that this was a planned terrorist attack because of the presence of heavy weapons and the obvious planning involved. So did others in the CIA.
This was no 'spontaneous mob' incensed by a YouTube video. Yet the actual intelligence was removed and that even more tenuous nonsense substituted.
Who made that decision? I doubt it was James Clapper, since the decision was ultimately a political one.
It almost certainly came from the White House, who also made the decision to send Susan Rice out to push that bogus narrative about a video on no less than 5 Sunday talk shows.
Other questions have to do with how the White House handled General Petraeus. He had to know that the talk about the video was sheer nonsense, yet he said nothing. In fact, he even parroted the Administration narrative before Congress on September 13th.
Was he being blackmailed? Did someone at the White House have a chat with him about his extramarital activities and promise him that if he kept quiet and played ball,it would all just remain their little secret? Did the White House double cross him after the election was safely won and out the story about his affair in order to make sure that anything he said about Benghazi would be discredited? Were there other people that were pressured to keep their mouths shut about the truth in order to keep Benghazi off the front pages and make sure it didn't effect the president's re-election campaign?
And once again..why weren't our easily available military assets sent in to rescue of diplomats? And why was security from the Benghazi consulate removed and Ambassador Stevens' requests for increased security ignored?
Ultimately, this smells like a scandal that dwarfs Watergate. It will take time, especially since the media is so involved in protecting this president, but we'll eventually get answers to those questions.