Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




"I think we have to take a good look as to whether our intelligence, particularly in these nine Middle Eastern countries, very troubled from within, is what it should be," US Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Feinstein: Mistakes Made on Benghazi Intelligence
CBS News
Controversy over last month's deadly US Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, showed no signs of ebbing as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned both the security at the American compound and the initial intelligence surrounding the assault.

When asked Wednesday by CBS San Francisco station KPIX-TV whether the Obama administration's initial response it later abandoned was the result of an intelligence flaw, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., indicated that talking points distributed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper may be to blame.

"I think what happened was the director of national intelligence, which we call the DNI, who is a very good individual, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Jim Clapper, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment," Feinstein told KPIX-TV. "I think that was possibly a mistake."

An intelligence community official said it's standard practice to provide information to officials speaking publicly about various national security issues. Clapper's office didn't respond to a request for comment on Feinstein's remark.

On Sept. 12, Mr. Obama made reference to general "acts of terror" in his first public remarks on the assault. On the following Sunday, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said on CBS' "Face the Nation" and other political talk shows that an anti-American protest was behind the assault.

Feinstein told KPIX-TV that the talking points were distributed by Clapper's office between the two dates.

The White House has since said the Benghazi attack wasn't part of a protest but was a terrorist attack.

"There's no question but that it was a terrorist attack," Feinstein told KPIX-TV. "There's no question but that the security was inadequate, and I think there's no question that we need to work on our intelligence."

The administration has come under criticism from congressional Republicans that the consulate wasn't provided with enough security, an assertion backed by security officials who testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month that they asked for more protection at the site.

Feinstein plans to hold a hearing on a report due out next month detailing the State Department's findings on the assault..."I think we have to take a good look as to whether our intelligence, particularly in these nine Middle Eastern countries, very troubled from within, is what it should be," Feinstein said.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: Still, this simply indicates that the Obama Administration reverted to the practice of "not connecting the dots" prior to the Benghazi attack, a criticism held by the 9/11 Commission of the US law enforcement, intelligence and governmental communities.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server