Lawmakers want to know who had a hand in creating the Obama administration's now-discredited "talking points" about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and why a final draft omitted the CIA's early conclusion that terrorists were involved.
The answers could explain why President Barack Obama
and top aides, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the
attack for days afterward as a protest against an anti-Islam video that
spontaneously turned violent and why they played down any potential link
to al-Qaida, despite evidence to the contrary.
Administration
officials have defended the portrayal of the attack as relying on the
best information available at the time that didn't compromise classified
intelligence. Democrats say CIA and other intelligence officials signed off on the final talking points.
Republicans
have alleged a Watergate-like cover up, accusing White House aides of
hiding the terrorism link in the run-up to the Nov. 6 presidential
election so voters wouldn't question Obama's claim that al-Qaida's power
had diminished.
"I know the
narrative was wrong and the intelligence was right. ... We're going to
get to the bottom of how that happened," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.,
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
No comments:
Post a Comment