For a while now, I've been wondering why it mattered so much to Republicans, all this business about the Obama administration allegedly misleading the nation about the origin of the Benghazi attack. The general public doesn't seem to care. Nevertheless, the Republicans keep harping on the matter.
The latest volley -- the latest "smoking gun" document -- turns out to be nonsense
, as one might have expected. And even the Slate story at the other end of that link has nonsense in it. (See here
for additional sanity on this issue.)
Here's the part that everyone (except me) leaves out: Administration officials told the New York Times the very next day
(September 12) that the attack in Libya appeared to be well-organized and pre-planned. Administration officials also said the same thing to ABC. I've included video evidence
to that effect in previous posts.
It's clear now that militants, who had already been preparing for some sort of assault, opportunistically used a spontaneous eruption by locals. I don't know why that sequence of events is so hard for people to visualize.
The Republicans nevertheless continue to focus on Susan Rice's "talking points."
Well, where did she get
those talking points? Ultimately, her info came from the CIA.
The latest round of propaganda is designed to deflect attention away from that key fact. The document
from Benjamin J. Rhodes, which is the focus of so much current attention, also derives from information from the CIA. If you read Taylor Marsh's sequence of events closely, you'll see that everything comes down to the signals sent by CIA
Who was running CIA at this time? David Petraeus.
Andrew Kreig's book Presidential Puppetry
helped me sort through the Petraeus connection. I recommend this work -- the Kindle edition is only $2.99 right now -- even though it's kind of a hodge-podge. It's really a blog in book form, in which views similar to those you'll find on Cannonfire are mixed in with a few unfortunate dollops of Glenn Beckian kookiness.
What everyone is ignoring is this: The Republicans have long been playing with the idea of backing a Petraeus bid for the White House. Here's an early shot across the bow
from 2009. And this
is a revelatory article...
In the American instance, Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election.
Thus in the spring of 2011 – less than 10 weeks before Murdoch's centrality to the hacking and politician-buying scandal enveloping his British newspapers was definitively revealed – Fox News' inventor and president, Roger Ailes, dispatched an emissary to Afghanistan to urge Petraeus to turn down President Obama's expected offer to become CIA director and, instead, run for the Republican nomination for president, with promises of being bankrolled by Murdoch. Ailes himself would resign as president of Fox News and run the campaign, according to the conversation between Petraeus and the emissary, K T McFarland, a Fox News on-air defense "analyst" and former spear carrier for national security principals in three Republican administrations.
Imagine that: Ailes quitting Fox to put Petraeus in office. Murdoch putting all his dough behind a Petraeus presidency. That's a big damned deal.
Jeez, do you really need
any more? The following facts are obvious:
1. David Petraeus was an Obama enemy, and he was running the See-fucking-Eye-Ay.
2. Rice's Beghazi info was coming from the See-fucking-Eye-Ay.
3. The Republicans hoped -- and still
hope -- to make Obama look bad on security issues in a replay of the undoing of Jimmy Carter. It's worth noting that Petraeus is close friends with Max Boot, a key Romney adviser.
The following is speculative:
1. The undoing of David Petraeus -- that stupid sex scandal -- may have stemmed from an Obama counter-move
. Previous CIA directors slept around -- Dulles was notorious -- and nobody ever gave a damn.
2. CIA files may have been salted with "evidence" to make Obama look bad.
3. The whole "Innocence of Muslims" video brouhaha was a spooked-up affair designed to set this crisis in motion.