Am I missing something, or is this merely poor reporting?
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI....
"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to [italics mine].
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.
So Rice didn't have the unexpurgated version, although she did have the unexpurgated version, although, again, she didn't.
Not that any of this is explosive, but neocon outlets such as the Weekly Standard--which characteristically cuts the quote after the italicized sentence above--are all over this and will remain all over it.
Yes, she would have been privy to it. It was also not part of the unclassified info, therefore, it would still have been considered classified information which she, under penalty of law, could not have provided to the media.
That is what is most missing here in terms or accurate journalism.
Posted by: japa21 | November 20, 2012 at 03:15 PM
To add to my comment aove, it does mention "shared at a classified level" but still implies that Rice could have mentioned this during her interviews. It just would have been nice if they had added that, due to it being classified, she could not have mentioned it.
Posted by: japa21 | November 20, 2012 at 04:03 PM
The only way to "understand" this foolishness is to accept that Republicans' parsing of Ambassador Rice's words was a political tempest in a teapot from the beginning. Whether the words "terrorism" or "terrorist act" were used in the initial statement is, of course, simply irrelevant. Any fool hearing the description of the attack and seeing the flaming compound on television knew this was an act of terror. The Administration appears to be giving this phony brouhaha all the attention it deserves, i.e., not much.
Posted by: Ansel M. | November 20, 2012 at 05:10 PM
I think the neocons will just need to fight this out with the CIA and the FBI.
Posted by: priscianus jr | November 20, 2012 at 09:22 PM