Saturday, November 17, 2012

"Emphasis" + unsworn testimony = no answers

It's hard to know what was actually said during Petraeus' testimony yesterday. The "testimony" was not sworn, and was not public. We are supposed to be satisfied with getting congressional spin and recollected "emphasis."

One assertion seems to be that the CIA's original assessment of the Benghazi attack was that Al Qaeda/affiliates were immediately seen as the perpetrators. But somewhere between the assessment and the dissemination to the public, the words were changed to "extremists," in order to not tip off the terrorists that we were on to them. 

Two problems:

1. Ok, so we see how "Al Qaeda" got left out, but how did "disgusting video" get in?

2. Who thinks the terrorists don't know we are on to them?

UPDATE: People are actually buying into the idea that specific names of terrorist groups could not be released because that would tip them off. Fine - that's not the issue. The issue is the narrative of completely discounting the fact that the attack was preplanned. It is insulting that the public was supposed to believe RPGs and mortars were part of a spontaneous protest. It's easy - all they had to say was that they didn't have enough information to make a clear determination. They went further in the wrong direction. Why? 

No comments:

Post a Comment