Pretty good article. Rats are abandoning ship, pointing fingers trying to cover their butts with stories that just don't hold water
Morell would have us believe that he’s written these 47 pages on Benghazi to correct misperceptions about his role and provide context for his actions. His critics will see his account rather as a transparent attempt to rewrite history and salvage what little credibility Morell retained after the Benghazi scandal. The critics are right. Morell’s attempt fails miserably.
Start with the facts about Benghazi that Morell doesn’t challenge:
* In every case, the changes made by administration and intelligence officials to the Benghazi talking points originated by the CIA had the effect of downplaying the significance of the attacks—cutting “Islamic,” replacing “attacks” with “demonstrations,” removing “with ties to al Qaeda,” excising mention of the involvement of Ansar al Sharia.
* Despite his own heavy hand in editing the Benghazi talking points, Morell sat silent when members of Congress grilled intelligence officials, including Morell, about who had made the changes.
* When he was asked if the intelligence community had provided the Benghazi talking points to the White House for “awareness or coordination,” Morell claimed that they were provided for awareness—as something of a courtesy. He made that claim despite the existence of dozens of pages of email traffic showing the clear coordination of the talking points between the intelligence community and top Obama officials at the White House and elsewhere.
* Although Susan Rice made misleading claims during her Sunday television appearances—claims that never appeared in the intelligence on Benghazi—Morell agreed to a White House request that he accompany her to a meeting with senators as she prepared for her possible nomination as Obama’s next secretary of state.
Morell doesn’t dispute these facts. That is both prudent and necessary: They’re indisputable.
Much more to read here: point by point
http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/spin-never-stops_946688.html?page=1
Morell would have us believe that he’s written these 47 pages on Benghazi to correct misperceptions about his role and provide context for his actions. His critics will see his account rather as a transparent attempt to rewrite history and salvage what little credibility Morell retained after the Benghazi scandal. The critics are right. Morell’s attempt fails miserably.
Start with the facts about Benghazi that Morell doesn’t challenge:
* In every case, the changes made by administration and intelligence officials to the Benghazi talking points originated by the CIA had the effect of downplaying the significance of the attacks—cutting “Islamic,” replacing “attacks” with “demonstrations,” removing “with ties to al Qaeda,” excising mention of the involvement of Ansar al Sharia.
* Despite his own heavy hand in editing the Benghazi talking points, Morell sat silent when members of Congress grilled intelligence officials, including Morell, about who had made the changes.
* When he was asked if the intelligence community had provided the Benghazi talking points to the White House for “awareness or coordination,” Morell claimed that they were provided for awareness—as something of a courtesy. He made that claim despite the existence of dozens of pages of email traffic showing the clear coordination of the talking points between the intelligence community and top Obama officials at the White House and elsewhere.
* Although Susan Rice made misleading claims during her Sunday television appearances—claims that never appeared in the intelligence on Benghazi—Morell agreed to a White House request that he accompany her to a meeting with senators as she prepared for her possible nomination as Obama’s next secretary of state.
Morell doesn’t dispute these facts. That is both prudent and necessary: They’re indisputable.
Much more to read here: point by point
http:/
And more.
