Image 01 Image 03

No, the CIA is not going to take the fall for Obama on Libya-gate

No, the CIA is not going to take the fall for Obama on Libya-gate

In a ritual as old as the existence of the modern intelligence community, leaks are beginning to spill out protecting the CIA from having to take the fall for Obama’s Libya cover-up.

Via CBS News, CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack:

U.S. officials tell The Associated Press that the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington 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 mob upset about an American-made, anti-Muslim movie.

It is unclear whether anyone outside the CIA saw the cable at that point or how high up in the CIA the information went.

The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed four Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

Expect more as Obama tries to push responsibility down the line:

The politicos are trying to get the top bureaucrats to take the spear. It ain’t going to happen. These Obama types might think they are very clever, tough, and devious Chicago politicians, but they obviously have never gone up against senior career State Department bureaucrats fighting for their jobs and reputations. Foggy Bottom vs. Chicago? Put your money on Foggy Bottom.

I can guarantee you that the State bureaucrats are burning up the phone lines, running down their cell phones batteries, and going hoarse in “off the record” calls to Congressmen, staffers, and journalists.

18 days until the election.  I hope the bureaucrats have recharged their cell phones.

Maybe there will be an October surprise after all.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It seems like this administration is sinking faster than the Titanic! So, the “captain” need not think that he’s going to save himself at the expense of others. Seems as though there are plenty who are saying, “Sorry, captain, your fate is to go down with the ship!”

State knew and CIA knew, but the DNI and the White House didn’t know. Yeah, that’s credible.

One of the things that’s true about BBOs (Big Bureaucratic Organizations) is that they OFTEN create “data islands”. You have crucial information that gets stuck somewhere short of the places needing it most.

It is a bugaboo that organizations need to be very aware of.

But here it is becoming increasingly clear that this was NOT a matter of “data islands” WRT the aftermath of the killings. What is appearing is a very deliberate attempt to shape a “narrative” (Collectivist for “truth”) that would make the Obama Doctrine NOT an obvious failure. Hence, the whole dance about the video, complete with ample sliming of our 1st Amendment by the Obami, and outright lies told using the coffins of the fallen for props.

    Seems but two choices. Obama knew more than he’s been saying, so it’s a attempt to cover incompetence on his part. Or, and I find the following unlikely given his past behavior, he choose not to be involved, which would amount to dereliction of duty.

    Also, it’s never a good sign when they’re more concerned about their own jobs then helping the “boss” keep his. Not many places for them to go, especially given the bucks they’re pulling down. Former presidents, well, have you ever known a poor one?

      Ragspierre in reply to ALman. | October 19, 2012 at 11:00 am

      I am finding a lot of merit in the idea that the time-line shows a different approach.

      McClatchy points out that there is a discrete point in time when the “protest narrative” starts, and it is AFTER the administration seemed to give some credence to the attack being planned.

      Hence, the truth would look like this…

      1. within hours, intel has suggested what most of us knew by the next day…this was a terrorist act

      2. there are statements by the Obami that support…ambiguously…the terrorist attack idea

      3. AFTER that, the regime standardizes a new, politically sculpted narrative that they then go full-tilt trying to sell (the Rice role); a protest over a video gets violent. This is motivated by a cynical political calculation that the Benghazi attack shows the Obama Doctrine to be in complete collapse, with a very vigorous Al Qaeda still present, coupled with the SCANDAL (separate) of the lax security provided the ambassador, the CIA station, and all sensitive information in the consulate

      4. The “protest narrative” breaks down under clear information that there was no protest.

      Again, there are LAYERS of scandal here, and they start with the magic thinking of Pres. Bumps and Hill-larry WRT the national security of the US

    David Yotham in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2012 at 11:09 am

    One of the beautiful coincidences(?) about the unfortunate death of Ambassador Stevens, and the mode of his death via a terrorist attack at a CIA station in Benghazi, is the timing. There is no way that Obama can clean up this mess before January 20th, much less November 6th.

    the biggest BBO of them all (DHS) was created due to this very issue.
    and its a huge failure.

… the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington 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 mob upset about an American-made, anti-Muslim movie.

Gosh! That sure sounds like something that someone who “is among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet” would know about.

More details:

….Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is “the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda.”

That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a “Front to Liberate Syria” to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.

Read more:

    snopercod in reply to tazz. | October 19, 2012 at 11:50 am

    The link tazz posted is very important. Everyone should read it. It sure sounds like Obama was running another “Fast and Furious” program with the Jihadis in Libya and Syria.

Dr.General-Director Petraeus: How ya liking the Infant Majesty’s stand-up belly muscles and willingness to take responsibility? About what you’ve figured, Sir? Are you smelling the cowardly sweat emminating from The Boy King’s bunker? May I suggest–in the STRONGEST Terms–that you Resign no later than Monday and not be shy about stating your reasons. Americans love, revere and respect you as the Great Warrior you are, Sir.

Your further career will be in Mitt Romney’s steady, loyal hands. He will back you completely. Time to step away from the Moral Midgets & Chicago Goon Crowd, General.

What say you?

I guess I’m a bit surprised there’s no discussion around the fact that this administration was trying to suppress free speech basically. That’s why I think they were so insistent about the video. They almost had Google shutting it down!

    DemNoMore in reply to Helen. | October 19, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    True, and it seems to be a pattern of behavior with them. They intended to use Fast and Furious to curtail our Second Amendment rights and this situation to erode our free speech rights.

legacyrepublican | October 19, 2012 at 10:32 am

One of the other features about living in the Monterey Peninsula years ago was the occasional run in with Leon Paneta.

I can’t imagine that Paneta is at all happy about how his political life is coming to a close. Obama brought him out of retirement to head up the CIA. He loyally answered the call.

Yet, I cannot believe that the leaks coming out of the CIA aren’t in someway a result of Paneta’s leadership. This is not how he wants to be remembered.

No, the CIA is not going to take the fall for Obama on Libya-gate

Maybe there will be an October surprise after all.

And it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy…

Clubs! A big club with lot’s of gnarled knots – that’s what those who despise Obama have needed. Perhaps this will remove any and every opportunity for him to occupy the White House ever again. He can forget 2016, 2020, 2024… The City of Oz has lost it’s sleazy Wizzie for good – until the next one shows up.

Perhaps next up on the agenda, given time, would be to instruct the American people a little about the responsibility of liberty and freedom. Enough with the entitlement paradigm and the propaganda MSM – our unelected leaders.

At the town hall debate, Obama was explicitly asked who denied the repeated requests for security – even as the security situation deteriorated – and why. Those are two questions he did not answer.

I have been waiting for a leak on that issue. It really is the critical issue in this whole cover up. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the decisions to deny security – something that made no sense – were made pursuant to a policy approved at the Clinton or Obama level. It is the only thing that makes sense. Professionals whose sole concern was providing security adequate to the threat would not have denied these requests – yet they did. There is a State Dept. document that shows that there was a policy to “normalize” our security posture in Benghazi. Who made that policy and who approved it? That is where the real crux of this issue lies, and I seriously doubt that the people who denied security at the operational level are going to take the fall for this. The only question is does the leak come before or after the election.

    InEssence in reply to GW. | October 19, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    I agree. Was Stevens ordered back, so he could be there to experience the reduce security? Reuters reported that the killers were on the American security detail. In other words, the USA hired the killers. The killer unit flies the Al Qaeda flag on all their vehicles. It looks like the orders to kill Stevens came from Washington.

The “ins and outs” are not relevant. Obama is responsible, regardless of anything.

Here’s the bottom line:

Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and Chief Diplomat. He’s supposed to know about everything important, so that he can make decisions and act on it. If he doesn’t, it’s still his responsibility: the President is accountable for building an organization that understands what he needs to know, when he needs to know it, and gets him the information promptly and efficiently.

This applies to every President. It is the hallmark of a high-level CEO and leader, which every President is supposed to be.

Obama failed. Parse it any way you like, Obama failed dismally, and there is no escape.

Right, is suppressing free speech just another bump in the road? Toward what totalitarian end?

Never let a crisis go to waste. It seemed they wanted to use this crisis to push the acceptance of a little Sharia, as they already do in parts of Europe. Obama seems to think radical Islam should have some of our power redistributed to them. He is tired of US being the bullies, so provides less offensive security, and in the face of an ambassador’s death, admonishes Americans.

The pushing of the video not only diminished the role of al Qaeda, but spotlighted the “problem” that America does not accept being submissive to Islam, but rather feels free to be as “intolerant” of jihad as jihad is of Christianity. (piss Christ vs burning Korans) The race card is so effective, why not play the religious intolerance card to cover up this little bump?

Look over there, a squirrel intolerant American. Threaten him, jail him, blame America first.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | October 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    meant that ^ as a reply to Helen:
    there’s no discussion around the fact that this administration was trying to suppress free speech

    Blame shifting from al Qaeda (and failed ME policy) to American (intolerant) free speech. Follows the Rev. Wright theme that we had 9/11 coming to US … Obama’s Wright chickens have roosted in the White House.

Speaking of Petraeus, where is he? Why haven’t we heard anything from him?

Something’s going on.

BENGHAZI-GATE: Did two heroic SEALs ruin Obama’s October Surprise?
After you read this and conclude it is some kind of wacko right wing conspiracy theory, look at the translation by Walid Shoebat from the Arabic words of the jihadists.
Video from Libya: ‘Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi’

Fast forward to the 1:15 mark in this video (if you don’t understand Arabic). Watch as the raw footage of a firefight in Benghazi is taking place. The news report loops the relevant portion of an exchange between gunmen, in which one can be heard, saying, ‘Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi’!
This video was available at Walid Shoebat’s website until yesterday when it was screened that it had been removed and the account was closed.
After Fast and Furious, it certainly is plausible to me that there would be an evil conspiracy between O and the Muslim Brotherhood. How bout you?

Bret Baier is hosting a Fox News Special on this Libyan catastrophe at 10:00 tonight. Seems that Ambassador Stevens had warned repeatedly about al Qaeda dangers and lousy Security. The very morning of 9-11-2012 he was expressing his concerns ON the RECORD. So, how are The Boy King’s MSM-Lapdawgs going to cover and flim-flam for their Master on this train wreck,’Yo??

General Patraeus: Is His Infantile Majesty looking to toss the CIA to the overcrowded bus undercarriage?? Again, Great American Warrior, I urge you to resign and make NO Secret as to the absence of respect you hold for The Anointed One and his scrawny minions. Your career under the stewardship of President Romney will move ever upward, Sir.