'I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.... As I understand
it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where
staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to
come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it
was an intelligence product.'
— Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, 23 January 2013
By Glenn Kessler
New information is raising questions about the development of the
administration’s talking points on the deadly attack on the diplomatic
facility in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans, including the
ambassador, dead.
Readers may recall that The Fact Checker
concluded that there was something rather odd about U.N. Ambassador
Susan E. Rice’s comments on the Sunday news shows shortly after the
attack. Rice said the attack “began spontaneously” because of a reaction
to a protest in Cairo sparked by a “hateful video,” and there was no
indication it was “premeditated or preplanned.”
We awarded her Two Pinocchios
the morning after she appeared on the shows, concluding that “the
publicly available evidence stands in stark contrast to Rice’s talking
points.”
The White House at the time sharply disputed that
conclusion, but over time that column has held up rather well. (In an
interview with congressional investigators that was released over the weekend,
deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks said “my jaw hit the floor as I
watched this.”) Some readers have suggested we should boost the
Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply
mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was
involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.
The
talking points have become important because, in the midst of President
Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the
journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a
preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism.
We also have awarded Pinocchios
to Republicans for claims about Benghazi. In this column, as a reader
service, we outline below some of the new disclosures, contained in a report by House Republicans and an article in the Weekly Standard, and contrast the new information with previous statements made by administration officials.
The
House report contains references to specific e-mails between
administration officials; the Weekly Standard then identifies who wrote
the e-mails as well as various drafts of the talking points. As far as
we know, the administration has not publicly denied the information
about the talking points contained in the GOP report or the article.
The
key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State
Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points.
Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that
the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence
officials.
Here is White House spokesman Jay Carney speaking to reporters on Nov. 28, 2012:
“Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch. And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.”
“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.”
Note
how Carney stressed that this was “developed by the intelligence
community” and the “talking points originated from the intelligence
community.”
In a narrow sense, this is correct. Both the House
report and the Weekly Standard say the CIA created — or “originated” —
the first draft of the talking points. The version as of Friday morning,
Sept. 14, 2012, was rather detailed, saying that “Islamic extremists
with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the
militant group Ansar al-Sharia. It also referred to previous attacks
against foreign interests and the possibility there had been
surveillance of the U.S. facility.
But a senior State Department
official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department
spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — objected to this draft after being asked
to clear the talking points for release. The CIA made some changes, but
apparently that was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail disclosed by
the House report that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those
of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership
“was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”
(Update:
Reading between the lines, part of State’s concern appears to be
inconsistency in messaging. Nuland, as State Department spokesman, had
been constrained from saying much about the attack at the podium, and
now the CIA was proposing to give lawmakers much more information than
the administration had released. Moreover, from State’s perspective, the
original draft contained references to CIA’s warnings about the
security environment, which appeared designed to deflect attention from
the agency’s substantial role in Benghazi.)
Minutes later, a
White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national
security adviser for strategic communications), who was part of the
email group receiving Nuland’s message, e-mailed to say that the State
Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be
resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.
The
result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking
points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all
references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA
official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike
Morell.
Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement
saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had
been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted
them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made
those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been
mentioned.
Morell may have had his hand on the pen, but the
available evidence suggests that White House and State Department had
much more involvement than the “single adjustment” of changing the word
“consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” as Carney asserted.
The
biggest unknown is whether the “building leadership” in the State
Department that objected to the initial talking points included anyone
on Clinton’s immediate staff. (One presumes that nit-picking over
wording would not have risen to Clinton’s level.) There is no indication
that Nuland had any role in crafting or even discussing the talking
points after her email on Friday evening, nor is it clear from the email
portions that have been released whether she had actually consulted
with other officials before objecting to the draft.
Nuland is expected to be nominated
for assistant secretary for European affairs. Lawmakers are likely to
question her closely on this point during her confirmation hearings.
Clinton,
during her testimony before the Senate and the House in January, made
the following comments about the development of the talking points. She
also stressed it was an “intelligence product” and said she was not
involved in the “talking points process” and she “personally” was not
focused on them — odd locutions that leave open the possibility that she
was aware of the internal debate at the time.
“I would say that I personally was not focused on talking points. I was focused on keeping our people safe.”
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”
“I was not involved in the so-called talking points process. My understanding is it was a typical process, trying to get to the best information available. It was an intelligence product.”
“The evidence was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points. And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”
As
more information emerges, we will continue to track how the
administration’s statements hold up over time and whether more Pinocchio
ratings are appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment