Director of National Intelligence and Ambassador Rice Now Blaming Each Other for Benghazigate

There’s so much buck passing going on in the halls of Obama Inc. for Benghazigate that if we could just figure out how to turn those bucks into real money, the national debt would get paid off.

For those keeping score, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who wants to become Secretary of State Susan Rice, blamed CIA talking points for her repeated lies about the Benghazi attack.

Former CIA Director Petraeus testified before Congress and denied responsibility for the CIA talking points, which were then edited later by an unknown individual or individuals.

That unknown individual is now being identified as none other than James Clapper, the Director of Defense Intelligence of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (try saying that twice), but the ODNI spokesman is, reasonably enough, passing the buck back to Rice for claiming not to know that this was an Al Qaeda assault and not a movie review.

CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

“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.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of “standard procedure.”

Turner is kicking the ball back to Rice on behalf of Clapper. To Obama Inc. Clapper is far more expendable than Rice, but like most insiders, he is unwilling to be expended.

It’s entirely possible that Clapper did approve the excision of Al Qaeda from the talking points. He did after all call the Muslim Brotherhood a moderate and secular group, but it’s also doubtful that he did it on his own. Most likely the edits reflected whatever the consensus on how to handle the attacks was in the administration.

And as Turner points out, Rice was certainly not dependent on the talking points. Rice was not some hired spokeswoman who could only know what was handed to her on a piece of paper. She was part of the inner circle and structurally knew everything that was known at the time. To argue otherwise is to suggest that Rice was so incompetent that she was incapable of doing anything more than repeating talking points, which also makes her completely unqualified to be Secretary of State.

  • Mary Sue

    Now that this is starting to unravel, it'll be interesting to see whether it comes out why this all happened. (I mean, we're all pretty sure why but I wonder if someone on the inside will spill confirmation if it)/.

    • John Eisenmann

      @Mary Sue: I saw you somewhere else. Obliar is trying to extend the time and play a game hoping people forget this disaster bit by bit , I have a good plan but I need someone to correct what i say in correct and native/local english form. do you agree?

  • Flowerknife_us

    They all knew what was up within hours. Then spent days on end telling known lies while shedding Crocodile tears. i
    Who knew what-when is just smoke. Who came up with the lie about the Movie is what matters. Not to mention why they stuck with it so long after becoming so transparently false/

    Obama played that Tune really well at the UN. Why let a crisis go to waste?

    How can one sleep at night knowing that either Obama was still clueless so late in the game or knew what was up and took advantage of it to advance some unspoken agenda by lies?

  • victor


    • fiddler

      It's pretty hard to beat gullible and stupid. Unfortunately there are too many such voters. I hate he cheap exchange, the brain-dead who sell out for goodies. They have never tasted success because it's too hard for them to attain. How this country has becomed duped by the seduction of the left. I refuse to concede that this is about white versus people of color. This is a mindset that I believe has served as agents of the abyss; those who appeal to the worst about our nature: the ability to envy and seek revenge rather than realize the opportunity and lawfully compete. How sad. What remains is God's judgment, but my prayer is that people will repent before it is too late.

  • riverboatbill

    Snakes turning on each other.

  • iddo

    Version #1: It was a YouTube video that we had nothing to do with!!!

    Version #2: It started as a spontaneous protest that was then escalated by a few extremists.

    Version #3: We believe it is “self-evident” this was a terrorist attack, don’t you?

    Version #4: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam! (Repeat x6).

    Version #5: It was because the GOP cut funding for embassy security, that’s why.

    Version #6: We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.

    Version #7: Everybody knows the entire reason that this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

    Version #8: Get the transcript, Candy…

    Version #9: It’s too early to tell whether it was indeed an act of terrorism or what group was involved.

    Version #10: It’s the State Dept who is responsible for these low-level embassy security details.

    Version #11: When we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way.

    Version #12: Basic principle is you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on.

    Version #13: My biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I'll always keep.

    Version #14: It was a bump in the road. Not optimal.

    Version #15: WH: It was the CIA’s fault. Period.

    Version #16: CIA: No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

    Version #17: Congress: Petraeus knew “almost immediately” it’s a terrorist act, then testified against it.

    Version #18: Media: Forget Benghazi, it’s a sex scandal here.

    Version #19: Congress: Someone changed the talking points but none of the intel guys who testified, Clapper included, know who it was.

    Version #20: CBS: It was Clapper who did it, and all the intel services heads signed off on it. Hey, WH cleared of all wrongdoing!

    Version #21: WH: Actually it was workplace violence.

    Version #22: WH: Ok, ok, we give in: How about dog ate homework?… :

    “A swift subject change is another of the verbal signs of lying. The person might also tell a story that lacks detail. If the story you are hearing starts to change or you are hearing different things at different times, this is a strong indication of lying. Liars will also contradict themselves, making statements that don't completely make sense. If you begin to feel suspicious, press on asking questions and looking for details that don't fit together.”

  • Deerknocker

    There is a concept in law to the effect that when negligence arises from a group of associated individuals and circumstances preclude assigning individual responsibility, the associated individuals can each be found culpable. The Obama administration, from Obama himself on down, is culpable for Benghazi absent some clear and believable explanation attributing culpability to a specific individual or group within that administration.

  • jakespoon

    The corner of the rug is being raised,the broom is poised,the sweeping will soon be done. Charges of racism and sexism are being leveled and repeated in the press. All criticism and critics will be pillory-ed as white racist men. Look,here's more minutes for your obamaphone. Crisis averted. What can we get away with next?