Let's put aside for a moment who did what to the talking points on Benghazi last September and focus just on the editing process, which could have come from an episode of 'The Office,' it seems.
A portion of pages of e-mails that the White House released Wednesday that document how the Obama administration crafted its public talking points immediately following the Sept. 11, 2012, deadly attack on a US diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, are seen at the White House in Washington.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
EnlargeThe White House on Wednesday released 100 pages of e-mails that detail the editing which produced the initial government talking points on last September?s attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Skip to next paragraph Peter GrierWashington Editor
Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.
Recent posts
' +
google_ads[0].line2 + '
' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Our read on this drove of internal documents? There?s no bureaucracy like a classified bureaucracy. While lots of lawmakers and pundits have argued over who was responsible for particular changes, there?s been much less attention paid to the editing process as a whole. The e-mails arguably depict that process as lengthy, ad hoc, contentious, and ineffective at producing information with any added value.
In fact, by the end, the nation?s national security team seems more than a bit like Dunder Mifflin, the dysfunctional paper company that?s at the heart of the TV series ?The Office.?
Here?s how the Benghazi talking points story arc played out:
THE FIRST EFFORT SOUNDED FINE. As distributed by the CIA?s Office of Congressional Affairs at around 2:30 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14, the talking points were a mix of the obvious and the reasonable, though there was one mistake at the beginning.
They began by noting that, at that time, the CIA believed the attacks were ?spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo.? This was wrong, but it?s one of the only talking points that no one ever tried to edit.
The document added that ?this assessment may change.? That?s pretty safe to assume, right?
Then the points said ?the crowd was almost certainly a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society.? That?s also safe to assume, if not blindingly obvious.
?That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al-Qaeda participated in the attack,? the CIA continued. Again, given the group?s spread, that?s likely. But ?know?? OK, maybe that needs changing.
Then the third talking point: ?Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.? Note the reference to press reports, which lawmakers could read at the time. The CIA itself at no point said this extremist group was involved.
Then the CIA noted that the ?wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya? probably made the attacks worse. Duh. The agency ended by noting the public fact that there had been previous attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.
UNDERLINGS MADE IT WORSE. Right away other intelligence officers started messing with this template. Shortly after the first draft was circulated, the CIA?s Office of Terrorism Analysis noted that ?warnings? should be added.
Shortly thereafter, intelligence analysts added to the first point, putting in a sentence that read ?we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.?
Danny Brown The Following amy schumer amy schumer Real Madrid Neverwinter George Jones
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.