CIA Fires Back at Congress’s Benghazi Theories

A former top agency official says he didn’t let politics influence his editing of now-controversial talking points.

This photo taken on September 11, 2012 shows a vehicle and surrounding buildings smoldering after they were set on fire inside the US mission compound in Benghazi.
National Journal
Jordain Carney
April 2, 2014, 10:38 a.m.

House mem­bers on Wed­nes­day grilled a former CIA of­fi­cial over al­leg­a­tions of a cov­er-up in the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s mes­saging after the Sept. 11, 2012, at­tack in Benghazi.

Mi­chael Mo­rell, the deputy dir­ect­or of the agency at the time, stressed that polit­ics or an al­leged at­tempt to mis­lead Con­gress and the pub­lic didn’t in­flu­ence his edit­ing of talk­ing points or his view of the CIA’s ana­lys­is.

“Let me em­phas­ize again: There is no truth to the al­leg­a­tions that the CIA or I ‘cooked the books’ with re­gard to what happened in Benghazi and then tried to cov­er this up after the fact,” he said in writ­ten testi­mony, adding in a House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee hear­ing that “I nev­er al­lowed polit­ics to in­flu­ence what I said.”

Law­makers dug in­to why ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials said pub­licly — and in un­clas­si­fied talk­ing points giv­en to con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees — in the days after the at­tack that it sprang from a spon­tan­eous protest. CIA ana­lysts later con­cluded that it was a de­lib­er­ate, co­ordin­ated ter­ror­ist at­tack.

Mem­bers poin­ted to emails from the CIA’s sta­tion chief in Benghazi that showed he be­lieved as early as Sept. 15 that there had not been a protest. Law­makers on Wed­nes­day cri­ti­cized Mo­rell for not in­clud­ing the sta­tion chief’s con­cerns in the clas­si­fied in­ter­agency doc­u­ments.

Mo­rell said the CIA’s ana­lysts, who were col­lect­ing in­form­a­tion from in­tel­li­gence and press re­ports, dis­agreed with the sta­tion chief’s as­sess­ment. Mo­rell did not be­lieve at the time that the sta­tion chief’s reas­ons for dis­agree­ing with the ana­lyst’s find­ings were sub­stant­ive enough. Ana­lysts re­vised their find­ings on Sept. 22 to say that they now be­lieved based on new in­form­a­tion that there wasn’t a protest.

Mo­rell also de­leted ref­er­ences to Is­lam­ic ex­trem­ism in the un­clas­si­fied talk­ing points, which were also used by then-U.N. Rep­res­ent­at­ive Susan Rice on the Sunday shows. Mo­rell said that while Rice had ac­cess to the body of in­tel­li­gence work done up to that point, the sta­tion chief’s con­cerns would not have been in­cluded, be­cause that doc­u­ment wasn’t shared out­side of the CIA.

But he ad­ded that he did give a “heads up” at a Depu­ties Com­mit­tee meet­ing — which in­cluded par­ti­cipants from a hand­ful of agen­cies — that the sta­tion chief dis­agreed with the as­sess­ment that there was a protest.

The CIA also re­moved ref­er­ences to al-Qaida from the talk­ing points. Mo­rell said that he also re­moved lan­guage that the agency had pre­vi­ously warned about se­cur­ity threats in Libya to avoid hav­ing the CIA ap­pear as if it were try­ing to ex­on­er­ate it­self in the at­tack.

“What I’m puzzled by as you look at those ed­its that you made, you take out most of the words that are in the talk­ing points,” Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Mac Thorn­berry of Texas said. “”¦ To me it seems like you’re more in­ter­ested in pro­tect­ing the State De­part­ment than the State De­part­ment is. You are more in­ter­ested in pro­tect­ing the FBI than the FBI is.”¦ That doesn’t make sense to me.”

Mo­rell ad­mit­ted that his ed­its were not the CIA’s best work, adding that “there are things we should have done dif­fer­ently, there are areas where the CIA’s per­form­ance, and my own per­form­ance, could have been bet­ter.”

But Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers cast doubt on his testi­mony, sug­gest­ing that he made ed­its to pro­tect the White House. GOP Rep. Dev­in Nunes of Cali­for­nia, who is run­ning to be the next com­mit­tee chair­man, said, “The prob­lem is you’ve got all these con­flict­ing stor­ies.”

And Rep. Peter King, a New York Re­pub­lic­an who is also in­ter­ested in the com­mit­tee chair­man­hip, ad­ded: “We have to be­lieve an aw­ful lot of cir­cum­stances to be­lieve your ver­sion with to­tal­ity.”

But com­mit­tee Demo­crats tried to steer the hear­ing to­ward fo­cus­ing on the need to cap­ture the mil­it­ants be­hind the at­tacks.

“We have only found evid­ence that the talk­ing points were ed­ited to en­sure ac­cur­acy, to check clas­si­fic­a­tion, and to safe­guard the in­vest­ig­a­tion and even­tu­al pro­sec­u­tion — which has to be our ul­ti­mate goal: find­ing and hold­ing ac­count­able those who com­mit­ted this ter­rible act,” said Rep. Dutch Rup­pers­ber­ger, D-Md.

Mul­tiple com­mit­tee re­ports, in­clud­ing one by the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, have largely blamed the White House and the State De­part­ment for fail­ing to re­spond to in­creas­ing se­cur­ity risks with­in Libya lead­ing up to the 2012 at­tack which left four Amer­ic­ans dead.

What We're Following See More »
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
12 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
19 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
×