This is precisely what Mike Morell was trying to explain to the House Intelligence Committee. I no sooner completed my last Benghazi post than the following information was released by Judicial Watch:
I am angrier than ever, because this document proves I was right when I stated in January that Congressman Trey Gowdy had lied to Greta van Susteran last December:
So many people confronted me on that post, saying I had no evidence, that Gowdy is an honest man, that I had no right to impugn his reputation, calling my patriotism into question; there were even a few expletives thrown in for good measure.
Well, it seems I did have evidence, that Gowdy is not an honest man, and that he impugned his own reputation.
Speaking of Mike Morell, Fox News aired the following after the report became public:
As usual, people are not listening. The fact is (and I like him), Bret Baier did not do his job. When Morell said "we" were not running guns into Syria, he should have immediately asked the question I did in a previous post, "Who is 'we'?" But he did not, and now the assumptions have become "fact" in news reports. This is how lies get propagated. Further, not only Fox but the House Intelligence Committee do not listen very well. Morell laid out the process of analysis very painstakingly, but it seems everyone only wants to hear what he or she wants to hear, which is one of the many reasons I am so frustrated.
This last link accuses Morell of lying at the National Press Club, when he said they did not know in advance of the planned attack on September 11, 2012. The document released by Judicial Watch states very clearly that the DIA memorandum dated September 12, 2012 was sent to Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta (then-Secretary of Defense, not CIA), the Joint Chiefs, and the National Security Council. Granted, CIA is represented on the NSC. But, this memo came out after the attack, and there is no guarantee that the information was passed along to the appropriate analyst(s). Further, there is nothing in the Judicial Watch report that tells who-knew-what-when. It is premature to be calling Morell a liar.
Also, the information from August, 2012 supports what Morell had to say. He stated repeatedly that CIA had warned for months about the "deteriorating situation", so again I fail to see how yesterday's "breaking news" proves Morell is lying about anything.
I am not defending a "Hillary man". Everyone knows (or should know) that I want Hillary Clinton hung from a yard arm. I am being as objective as I know how to be. Not everyone in CIA is a liar. General David Petraeus was not a liar, and so far Mike Morell has not proven himself to be one, either. I am speaking from my many years in security. You do not want a memo from CIA to the FBI saying, "It was al-Qaeda". Why not? Because it would taint the investigation. So, regardless of CIA's suspicions, it was reasonable to leave that out of the "talking points". Also, I thought Congressman Dwyer was absurd when he suggested Morell was protecting the State Department by omitting the "warning language". Had Morell left it in, I have no doubt Dwyer would have accused him of trying to deflect blame away from CIA. A little objectivity would be refreshing, Congressmen.
However, it is impossible to give that same benefit-of-the-doubt to the White House. Clearly they knew it was al-Qaeda, but given what I just said about tainting the investigation, what story should the Administration have told? How about: None? Certainly do not float a narrative they know to be a lie and that they know is going to bite them in the ass! So, why did Obama do it? Because al-Qaeda was "on the run", and God-forbid the public should find out otherwise.
The reason for this blog post is a classic example of how analysis works. Until Sunday, I was working with a given set of information, and drawing conclusions based upon that information. Yesterday, Judicial Watch shed new light on Benghazi, causing me to reassess my previous analyses, which is precisely the process Morell described to the Committee.
That being said, it also proved I was right about Gowdy. There is no way that, in December of 2014, with all of the classified briefings and classified documents to which he has been exposed, including the above-referenced DIA memorandum from September 12, 2012, that he did not have any clue about a possible "nefarious" connection between Benghazi and Turkey. There is just no way, especially for a man who sarcastically refers to himself as having been a "average prosecutor" (in fact he had a perfect conviction rate).
Congressman Trey Gowdy, along with key members of the Obama Administration, have a truckload of explaining to do.