U.S.
Representative John Boehner
Carney
Claims on Changing Benghazi Talking
Points at Odds With the Facts
May 8, 2013
It’s
well documented that in the days and weeks
following the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September
11,
2012, the Obama administration conveyed to the American people a wholly
inaccurate account of the events. The talking points used by
senior
administration officials, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, had
been
altered to remove any references to the participation of Islamic
terrorists in
the attack and the previous terrorist threats in the area.
For months,
the White House has suggested it had no part in editing the talking
points –
which served as the United State’s government’s official explanation of
what
took place that night. We now know those claims aren’t true.
Again
today the White House said that changes
made to the talking points were made almost exclusively by the
intelligence
community, ignoring the fact that senior White House and State
Department
officials directed the CIA to change those talking points.
Hiding behind
the CIA, the President’s spokesman claimed this afternoon that White
House
changes amounted to a single word, for “stylistic” purposes. However,
the recent
disclosure by a five-committee investigation of internal email
correspondence
demonstrates that substantive edits – nearly a wholesale rewrite – were
directed by White House and senior State Department officials to the
CIA.
From
the multi-committee interim
report:
“When
draft talking points were sent to
officials throughout the Executive Branch, senior State Department
officials
requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring
the
threat environment in Benghazi. Specifically, State
Department emails
reveal senior officials had ‘serious concerns’ about the talking
points,
because Members of Congress might attack the State Department for “not
paying
attention to Agency warnings” about the growing threat in Benghazi.
This
process to alter the talking points can only be construed as a
deliberate
effort to mislead Congress and the American people.
“After
slight modifications were made on
Friday, September 14, a senior State Department official again
responded
that the edits did not ‘resolve all my issues or those of my building
leadership,’ and that the Department’s leadership was ‘consulting with
[National Security Staff].’ Several minutes later,
White House officials
responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to
be
taken into account and asserted further discussion would occur the
following
morning at a Deputies Committee Meeting.
“After
the Deputies Committee Meeting on
Saturday, September 15, 2012, at which any interagency disagreement
would be
resolved by the White House, a small group of officials from both the
State
Department and the CIA worked to modify the talking points to their
final form
to reflect the decision reached in the Deputies meeting. The
actual edits
were made by a current high-ranking CIA
official. Those edits struck
any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously
warned of
threats in the region, that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi
by al-Qa’ida-linked
groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya, and that extremists linked to
al-Qa’ida
may have participated in the attack on the Benghazi
Mission. The
talking points also excluded details about the wide availability of
weapons and
experienced fighters in Libya, an exacerbating factor that contributed
to the
lethality of the attacks.”
From
these emails (recently denied to be made public by the White House),
it’s clear
that the State Department and White House were deeply involved in
re-drafting
these talking points. Cynically claiming that the White House
bears no
responsibility for the talking points because a CIA officer physically
made the
changes is the kind of evasion that won’t fly with the American people.
The
question isn’t who was sitting at the keyboard; it’s who decided not to
tell
the American people the truth. The White House should make
these emails
public and explain to the American people their motives for stripping
the
talking points of critical information.
|