Troubling
questions in the Benghazi-Petraeus Mess
Published November 12,
2012
| FoxNews.com
advertisement
Something is rotten in
Benghazi-Petraeus. But we cannot find the rot in these two tragedies because
the information is classified and the administration remains silent at the
pleasure of the press.
Benghazi first: The CIA Libyan Chief of
Station within 24 hours of the Tuesday September 11 attack on our consulate
cabled CIA headquarters that it was carried out by militants and not in
reaction to an obscure American-made internet video that criticized Islam’s
Prophet Muhammed.
Yet on Friday, September
14, Director of Central Intelligence, General David Petraeus, ignored his chief
boot-on-the-ground and briefed the House Intelligence Committee, as described
by Vice-Chairman Ruppensberger (D-Md), that the attack was “spontaneous.”
What happened in those two
days that the causal theory turned 180 degrees? Did the now discarded theory
belong only to Director of Central Intelligence Petraeus and the CIA?
Because on that same day, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman Admiral James Whinnefeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that they believed the attack was premeditated.
Because on that same day, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman Admiral James Whinnefeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that they believed the attack was premeditated.
The administration had time
to co-ordinate the two inconsistent assessments. It did not. On Sunday,
September 16, UN Ambassador Susan Rice fulfilled the quinfecta of all Sunday
shows during which she vigorously backed the CIA/ Petraeus position: “What
happened…in Benghazi…was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that
was widely disseminated, which the U.S. government had nothing to do with,
which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.” (ABC Jake Tapper)
The press reported the CIA provided her “talking points,” a job usually
reserved for a press secretary.
Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton was nowhere to be seen or heard that day. Her spokesperson, Victoria
Nuland, has steadfastly deferred to others when asked whether the video was the
cause.
The White House had 9 more
days to gather facts to decide which theory was supported by the evidence. It
did not. Or it chose not to tell us.
Nine days later in his
speech to the United Nations, President Obama was still accusing the video of
being the proximate cause where he referred to it six times, declaring “a crude
and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” This
discredited claim was made notwithstanding Libyan President Mohammad Magarief’s
telling NBC on that very day that the attacks “had nothing to do with” the
video. Did these two presidents not communicate during this time? Or did
President Obama ignore the president-on-the-ground’s assessment?
For some reason DCI
Petraeus backed the Obama unsupported theory that the video made the attackers
do it rather than his own Chief of Station’s assessment that it was a planned
military attack.
Why do the shifting stories
and misplaced theory of cause matter?
Because if an
administration pushes a political agenda that applauds the killing of Bin Laden
as the ultimate act for eradicating the radical Islamic threat, then that same
administration ignores its Ambassador’s urgent pleas for more security for fear
it will appear Bin Laden’s demise was not the answer to that threat. Our
country’s chief spy is supposed to know which theory is held up by the
evidence.
Having pointed out the
context of Petraeus’ strange support of that now refuted theory, we must turn
to the bizarre circumstances of his resignation as DCI after the FBI discovered
he had an affair with his biographer.
Something is terribly amiss
for those of us steeped in federal criminal law, national security, and
Congressional protocol. We have been told that the president knew nothing of
the investigation until post-election Wednesday.
Similarly, the relevant
Congressional committees said they either heard about it on television (Senate
Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein) or just a few hours before the
announcement. Yet policy and the law—depending on the gravity of the
facts--call for the FBI to inform the Intelligence Committees and the White
House whenever there is a concern about any person involved in national
security.
When there is merely a
minor security concern, for example if a bad actor happens to be at the same
dinner party in a foreign country as a travelling Member of the Intelligence
Committee, long standing policy establishes that the Intelligence Committees
should be informed. But the Petraeus matter was “significant.” Thus the law
requires notice to the relevant Congressional Members. What did FBI Director
Robert Mueller know and when did he know it? And whom did he tell?
If notice were the only
breach of law or protocol it might not mean much, except bad judgment. But the
entire scenario of Petraeus’ nomination and confirmation does not compute, and implicates
an additional level of incompetence or willful blindness.
Consider: When Petraeus was
nominated for DCI, there were “rumors” in Afghanistan about the duo and the
extent of her access to him, according to well-respected foreign policy expert
and Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland, who was on the ground
there at the time.
Who headed Petraeus’
background investigation? The first time I had a background check, the FBI
asked my neighbors whether I was a good mother. They also asked whether I was a
lesbian.
These people are not shy
about asking sensitive sex-related questions.
Consider: In the
questionnaire a nominee must submit for the confirmation process, there is that
final catch-all question. “Is there anything in your past that could embarrass
the president?” That’s when the delicate affair should have been discussed by
the Army General War Hero. Having an embarrassing issue does not disqualify the
nominee. It means more investigation needs to be done to determine whether the
conduct really is a problem. Did Petraeus reveal the relationship at that time?
Consider: All candidates
for CIA employment must take a polygraph. Doesn’t the nominee for DCI have to
do so also? And that nasty little catch-all embarrassment question is always asked
by the polygrapher. Usually, the polygraphee is thinking back to college and
confessing to smoking pot. In 2011, it would not take a sterling memory for
Petraeus to remember a 2011 affair.
Why is the administration’s
handling of the affair significant? Because sloppy vetting of the country’s top
spy and not giving timely notice to the oversight committees was either gross
incompetence or a deliberate evasion of law. Or the sticky situation was used
to pressure the DCI into backing the White House theory. Or there was a much
bigger secret at Benghazi that all involved were (and still are ) trying to
cover up.
The two seemingly unrelated
incidents are now merged. Just days before Petraeus is scheduled to testify
about the first, he resigns because of the second, and cancels his
Congressional appearances. The House and Senate have the authority to subpoena
him. It is up to them and the media to find the rot.
