House Intel Committee to determine if Ex-CIA Director Chose to Lie about Benghazi or was told to

According to a September 15, 2012 email addressed to Mike Morell, who at the time was the Deputy Director of the CIA, the Benghazi attack was “not an escalation of protests”. This is significant because one day later, then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the audiences of five national Sunday talk shows that it was.

Ex-CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell.

Ex-CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell.

On April 2nd, the House Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hear testimony from Morell and that discrepancy is expected to be a central theme. Last year, reported on the findings that Morell and a man named Jake Sullivan were intimately involved in drafting Rice’s talking points. Today, Sullivan is serving as the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Earlier this year, brought you the explosive claims made by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (Ret.), who asserted that Morell could be a considered a ‘co-conspirator with al-Qaeda’ if he withheld the contents of the email he received from his station chief.

However, if Morell was told by anyone higher up within the administration to dismiss the contents of the email and work toward drafting the talking points ultimately parroted by Rice one day later, the charge levied by Shaffer would almost necessarily apply to someone higher up the food chain. According to one report, a former intelligence official said that’s exactly what happened.

Another claim that is bound to get attention is the ‘fog of war’ defense and that multiple pieces of conflicting information caused the watering down of the talking points.

Susan Rice: Like Sullivan, she was promoted after Benghazi.

Susan Rice: Like Sullivan, she was promoted after Benghazi.

Two days after the attack, armed with far less information than the Obama administration or CIA has, accurately reported that the purpose for pushing the video narrative in the Middle East was to help create a climate whereby non-Muslim countries would pass laws making it a crime to be critical of Islam. In essence, the video wasn’t the source of any riots. Instead, it was a tool used by Muslim fundamentalists to further an agenda.

That the Obama administration appeared to push the same narrative should only call the administration’s motives further into question.


, ,