By: Roger Aronoff*
Accuracy in Media
The news media are continuing to try to protect the Obama administration from a rapidly growing scandal. A November 13th
article
in The Washington Post by Scott Wilson argued that Obama “has been
untouched by the unfolding investigation involving former CIA director
David Petraeus,” a view that belongs on the opinion page under the
heading, “wishful thinking,” not on the news pages.
The stunning news from November 9th that CIA Director David Petraeus
had resigned over an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, a
former Army intelligence officer and a former lieutenant colonel in the
Army Reserve, has become the source of numerous theories and
psychological questioning of what makes powerful people tick. But it is
actually proving to be a second shot at what should have been treated as
a major Obama administration scandal prior to the November 6th
election, the situation surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi,
Libya on September 11 this year, as I argued in a
column last week.
Why, in light of two previous attacks this year on our consulate in
Benghazi, did we keep it open, and not provide the added security that
Ambassador Chris Stevens pleaded for? Why, knowing that he was on an
al-Qaeda hit list, was our consulate not better protected, especially in
light of
a secret August 16th cable
he sent to Hillary Clinton’s office at the State Department pointing
out that there were “approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training
camps within Benghazi?” Why did the administration for weeks try to
argue that this was the result of a spontaneous demonstration that got
out of hand, which was, as Susan Rice called it, a copy-cat
demonstration of the one earlier in the day in Egypt, supposedly over a
little seen anti-Muslim video trailer made in the U.S.?
The bar for what is considered a scandal was cited in an
Atlantic Wire article
last year, as being when the word “scandal” is on the front page of The
Washington Post. In the case of Obama, according to this definition,
even Operation Fast & Furious and Solyndra didn’t qualify as
scandals.
The Post’s Scott Wilson wrote that the Petraeus “scandal hinges on a
personal relationship beyond the White House and has not implicated the
president or his closest advisers.” That is where Wilson, the Post and
most of the media have missed the big picture.
The Post reported on the front page on November 13th that Petraeus
had planned to continue in his job as CIA director if his affair with
Broadwell did not go public, and he was apparently led to believe it
would not go public.
Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Post, in his role as a Fox
News analyst, saw that information as being very revealing: “It meant
that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on…and
that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole
celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected
they would protect him by keeping it quiet.”
Krauthammer continued: “And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and
that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects
the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal
relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and
voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man
who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives
testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had
said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station
chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he
influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within
the administration at that time?”
Now that the Petraeus adultery scandal has emerged, it is bringing
all these issues to the forefront, with an emboldened Republican Party
that doesn’t believe the President when he says he knew nothing about
the Petraeus affair until the day after the election. It’s not just
Republicans, as many in the media are just as incredulous. Ron Kessler,
for example, a former reporter for The Washington Post, now with
Newsmax,
wrote
the day following Petraeus’s resignation, “FBI agents on the case
expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than
risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence
secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his
pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving
Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.”
Kessler has written several books on the FBI, the CIA and the Secret
Service, and is known to have excellent sources inside the FBI. He added
that “FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been
made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were
outraged.”
It is just not believable that Attorney General Eric Holder knew
about the affair and the investigation in late summer, and the FBI knew
about it at least since May, yet the President was kept in the dark that
his CIA director was under investigation. If that is what happened,
then heads should roll for incompetence, and leaving the head of the CIA
in a vulnerable position while the President of the United States was
unaware.
Holder finally offered an explanation publicly on November 15th. He
said the Justice Department does “not share outside the Justice
Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations.” He
said he “made the determination as we were going through that there was
not a threat to national security.” As the Post reported, “Because of
that conclusion there was no reason to advise officials outside the
department before the investigation was complete.”
Apparently he felt it was finally complete enough to go to the
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Jr. on late afternoon of
Election Day. Clapper then told the President the following day. But
then how is it that it was only this week, on November 12th, that the
FBI went to Ms. Broadwell’s home to search her computer for classified
materials? It is those sorts of questions that make it implausible that
an investigation to figure out if this posed a national security threat
would not have been brought to the attention of the President.
Today, Petraeus went before the House and Senate Intelligence
committees to clarify how the message of what the administration knew
and when they knew it became so tangled. The issue was attempting to
square what he was said to have told Congress back on September 13th
with what is now known to be the case. Back then, it was reported that
Petraeus said the attack on the consulate resulted from a demonstration,
akin to a “flashmob,” sparked by the anti-Islam video, and not a
planned terrorist act.
Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee,
said that Petraeus claimed that he had said early on that the attack on
the consulate was a result of terrorism. But King seemed puzzled, saying
that he remembered Petraeus playing down the role of an al-Qaeda
affiliate during his September 13th testimony.
According to Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) of the House Intelligence
Committee, who attended Petraeus’s September 13 appearance and today’s,
the initial talking points that the CIA released went through an editing
process before being given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who addressed
the media on the Sunday following the attack. Heck said they didn’t know
for sure who edited the talking points, but President Obama said at his
press conference on Wednesday that Rice “made an appearance at the
request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of
the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and
Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go
after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them
to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and
was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had
received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”
In other words, President Obama was taking the credit for whatever
“presentation” Rice made during her talk show appearances. Rep. Heck
told Fox News, “The initial talking points, which were put together in
an unclassified format at the request of the House Intelligence
Committee initially did state that al-Qaeda affiliated groups were
involved, however, we understand that by the time it went through its
editing process after it left Langley (CIA), that reference was taken
out.” He added that Petraeus made clear and emphasized this morning that
“the initial intelligence reporting which stated that the incident grew
out of a spontaneous demonstration or protest was proven to be false.
There was no protest outside the gates prior to the attack starting. And
that became apparent after the interviews of individuals that were at
the compound as well as after being able to view the surveillance
videotape of the embassy outpost.”
Was Petraeus changing his story and no longer parroting the White
House’s line? That remained unclear, but it certainly appears that he
changed his tune. Another oddity was the timing of an announcement by
the CIA on Thursday, the day before Petraeus would be talking to the
committees for the first time since his resignation, that the CIA
inspector general would be conducting an investigation into his conduct.
Another warning to toe the party line?
On that same day, Andrea Mitchell raised the question of Petraeus’s
responsibility in an interview with Democratic Senator Kent Conrad.
“What is David Petraeus’s responsibility for this?” asked Mitchell.
“There is some suggestion that General Clapper, the Director of National
Intelligence, was already concerned that the CIA was putting out its
defense without checking with other agencies for the way Benghazi was
handled. And also that the White House is not happy with the CIA for
giving talking points to Susan Rice that got her into this political
difficulty on the Sunday morning talk shows. Do you think the agency
should bear some responsibility or is this scapegoating after the fact?”
Even Sen. Conrad was amused by Mitchell’s spin.
It remains to be seen how this plays out. Republicans are calling for
a Watergate-type select committee, meaning that instead of Armed
Services, Intelligence and Homeland Security each holding separate
hearings, there would be one committee with members from each of those
committees represented. Also, the lead would come from the House, rather
than the Senate, which would leave the Republicans in charge to
determine the witnesses and schedule, rather than having Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid once again running interference for the Obama White
House.
This is not what President Obama had in mind for his second term in office.
--------------------------------------
*Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media
![NEOCASTRISMO [Hacer click en la imagen]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5jy0SZhMlaU/SsuPVOlq2NI/AAAAAAAAH1E/4xt2Bwd2reE/S150/ppo+saturno+jugando+con+sus+hijos.jpg)
