By David Beilstein
IT is being reported that Peter King (R-NY) told the media former CIA director David Petraeus told congressional members earlier today in closed door testimony, CIA talking points were edited to “play down” terrorism links to the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11 of this year.
Congressman King said Petraeus informed the committee U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points differed from the ones given to her by CIA officials. Moreover, King says, those talking points according to Petraeus’ testimony, were edited in order to distance the Benghazi attack from a terrorism.
As reported earlier on Crede, ut Intelligas, Petraeus’ testimony emphasised that as director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack on the U.S. Consulate – leading to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three Americans – he knew almost instantaneously the Libya attack was hatched by al-Qaeda linked Ansar al Sharia.
It now appears the weight of this situation cannot help but focus the mainstream press. It will be hard to justify disinterest in a growing story involving American death and human vanity. The big question remains what Ambassador Stevens and the CIA were doing in Libya? Speculation runs the gamut. It would appear the Obama administration was playing slap-and-tickle down in Libya – got burned – and is now trying to shuffle the deck so as not to reveal what is behind the curtain.
It is the CIA’s duty to deal with unfriendly elements; even dangerous ones. That is the cost of HUMINT intelligence. And the lack of such HUMINT intelligence capabilities in the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, evidenced epic intelligence breakdown.
This does not mean oversight is detrimental to CIA success in the War against Islamic Fascism. It does mean leaders need to make wise decisions; decisions that take into account the longterm view of American security and sovereignty. I am not convinced such concerns are at the forefront of President Obama’s reasons for doing whatever it is the administration was doing in Libya.
In the end, the best argument against the Obama administration’s excursion into Libya has always been that America should have never gone. Libyan defiance was contained; America rides a violent wind of more pressing concerns around the world in the war against terrorism.