If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Has an unnamed “intelligence official” come out with a new version of the events in Benghazi, Libya to help Obama’s re-election chances? Why is there a change in the story on the eve of the last presidential debate?

(Oct. 21, 2012) — An ABC News report published at Yahoo! News “19 hours ago” as of this writing directly contradicts numerous vetted news reports over the last four weeks which indicated that the attack in Benghazi was pre-planned by militants who were well-armed.

The Obama regime had first blamed the attack, which killed four Americans, on a little-known internet video which parodied the Prophet Muhammed, until more than two weeks later, when officials were forced to admit that the attack had been launched by terrorists and planned in advance for the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

Why is this new story appearing now, and what is its source?

The original ABC News report is here.  Who is the “U.S. intelligence official” quoted as having said, “Right now, there isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance”?

Why has the story changed yet again?  Is this damage control put out by the Obama regime?

During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden had blamed the White House’s early reaction to the Benghazi attack on the information it purportedly received from the intelligence community.  However, former CIA director Michael Hayden responded that “it was ‘clear’ that any failure was not on the part of the intelligence community, but on the part of White House decision-makers who should have listened to, and acted on, available intelligence.”

Biden is said to have lied several times during the debate, including when he asserted that religious institutions are not being forced to provide contraception against their beliefs.  There are currently at least 35 lawsuits challenging the provision of the health care bill, signed by Obama in March 2010, which forces them to fund contraception, abortion, sterilization, and abortifacients in what the organizations claim is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Mainstream media reports have presented the question of why the U.S. military was not summoned to assist after the consulate in Benghazi was attacked nor to conduct a rescue mission.  On Saturday it was revealed that a drone had been launched to fly over the attack zone, but no actions were undertaken to stop the violence which enveloped the compound in flames and smoke and killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three special contractors.

Reports reflecting that the CIA knew within 24 hours of the attack that it had been preplanned by militant extremists abound on the web. The State Department has admitted that there were “no protests before the attack” on the night of September 11, but rather, “a group of armed men” had entered the compound and then poured diesel fuel on the building, causing it to become engulfed in flames which killed the ambassador and Sean Smith, one of the special contractors.

Fox News has also reported that “changing intelligence” from “a U.S. intelligence official” blends the anti-Islamic video with the theory that there was no protest at the time outside of the Benghazi consulate but that extremists carried out the violence.

A CNN report dated October 19, the same day as the “revised” Fox News report, quotes an “intelligence official” as having stated, “A key question early on was whether extremists took over a crowd or if the guys who showed up were all militants. It took time—until that next week—to sort through varied and sometimes conflicting accounts to understand the group’s overall composition.”  The story also asserts that “At the time, there were many demonstrations across the Middle East over the film.”

The U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt had been the scene of a protest during which the American flag was torn down and an Islamist flag raised in its place. The State Department’s response was to apologize for the video which had allegedly been the catalyst of the occurrence.  However, further demonstrations took place later in the week, not on September 11, as CNN states.

Fox News’s Catherine Herridge had said that violent demonstrations took place in the week following the attack on Benghazi “with no mention of the YouTube clip.”  Now an “intelligence official” is stating that the video was involved.

But now, the term “spontaneous” is being substituted with “opportunistic” as an opinion writer at The Washington Post has stated that the “Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.”

How can Romney argue against “intelligence” which changes apparently with the political winds?  Where are the “documents?”

Why has the “intelligence community” changed its facts just prior to the last presidential debate, which will focus on foreign policy?  Is there one intelligence officer willing to fall on his sword for Obama, as Hillary Clinton may have attempted to do when she took responsibility for the deaths of four Americans?  Clinton has admitted to knowing about security lapses, and four people testified to the House Oversight Committee on October 16 about “normalization” efforts in Libya to maintain an appearance of security when there was none.

Also on October 19, it was reported that “Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants…But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.”

A Reuters report cited Republicans who have cited “shifting explanations” for the attack, which Clinton said “went on for hours.”  Clinton had blamed the White House for the source of “misinformation” about the actual cause of the attack.

The UK Telegraph reported on October 19 that “CIA sources said they had reported ‘within 24 hours’ that the assault was carried out by Islamist militants.”

So who is telling the truth, and who is lying?  Why is the AP contradicting ABC News?

Last night, The New York Times reported that a “deal” had been reached between the U.S. and Iran to hold talks on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, but the story was walked back to say that Iran had “agreed in principle” to such talks after Obama’s National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said that there were “no plans” to hold such discussions.

The CIA website states:

Officers in the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence (DI) are on the forefront of protecting US national security interests in a fast-changing world. As a DI analyst, your challenge is to anticipate and quickly assess rapidly evolving international developments and their impact, both positive and negative, on US policy concerns. Technological advances have increased the complexity, scope, and speed of potential risks to our national security, and threats can come from farther away, faster, and with less warning than ever before.

The intelligence support that DI officers develop and provide through written products such as the President’s Daily Brief and the World Intelligence Review (WIRe), as well as through other methods is a core function of the Agency. While the CIA does not make foreign policy, our analysis of intelligence on overseas developments feeds into the informed decisions by policymakers and other senior decisionmakers in the national security and defense arenas.

But is the CIA now becoming politicized as Obama’s poll numbers are falling just over two weeks before the election?  Why does the story on Benghazi continue to evolve?

The CIA is under the direction of “the President.”

The moderator of the second debate, Candy Crowley, first said that Obama had not termed the Benghazi attack “a terrorist attack” before she said that he had during the debate last Tuesday.

A senior research analyst for Maj. Gen. Paul Valley, who has focused on the Middle East, told The Post & Email that because the U.S. private contractors who were tracking the whereabouts of thousands of pieces of weaponry throughout Libya following Gaddafi’s fall from power were among those killed, the work they were performing “is now all for naught” because Libya has now fallen into the control of terrorists.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Seems like NASA has been turned into a “Muslim Outreach” agency. Seems like our “intelligence agency” has had it’s intelligence turned over to a “Muslim Outreach” agency also. Edgar Hoover was told about the attack on Pearl Harbour 2 weeks before it happened. He threw the German Spy out of his office that tried to tell him and he went into a “GAY RAGE” when he heard it and did’t believe him. The rest is history. Should we expect anything different than what is happening in Sweden with the Muslim’s at this point? We are just behind with 350,000 towel heads in Detroit folks. Since Hillary has enabled them here I hope you’re stockin’ lots of ammo cause you’re gonna’ need it in just a few years. See http://www.creepingsharia.wordpress.com and enjoy our new social theme. When Sharia law comes in, the divorce attorneys will be hurting!

  2. Attention to ALL:

    I have been watching for over twenty years and their MO is twofold if the story that is reported first has too much information which they really wanted to spin, they create another source or as many as it may take to make the story go away. Several versions will make people give up.

    If the story is not too revealing then they will create a ‘He said, She said’ scenario. This is type with a subject matter that a very few will even be interested in but they will continue until the next story they want to get out to scare the people. The result of this one will have the person/friend telling you that you were wrong last time. They do this all the time under their rules of ‘Divide and Conquer’ a rule found in the book ‘Art of War’. A copy is available here – http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/Pattison_War_book.html

    What happens over time is that a few good men and women each year will just give up because they just cannot take the feedback from their friends telling them they were wrong again.

    All Rights Reserved,
    /S/ Steven Pattison