Emails show CIA, State Department at odds over Benghazi ‘talking points’
One hundred pages of documents released by the White House suggest the top two officials at the CIA disagreed about how many details the administration should disclose about the agency’s view of who carried out the Benghazi attacks.
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — One hundred pages of emails released by the White House on Wednesday reveal intensive jostling among top intelligence and diplomatic officials over the government’s “talking points” in the aftermath of September’s attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.
The documents suggest that the top two officials at the CIA disagreed about how many details the administration should disclose about the agency’s view of who carried out the attacks and its earlier warnings about terrorist threats in the region.
In a copy of a draft memo released by the White House, Michael Morrell, the agency’s deputy director, crossed out five sentences from the talking points that described the agency’s warnings about threats from Islamic extremists. State Department officials also strongly urged that the warnings be left out, according to the emails.
The CIA director at the time, David Petraeus, evidently disagreed with his deputy and believed that the warnings should be made public. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then ...,” Petraeus wrote in an email to colleagues, referring to a version of the talking points that excluded the warnings.
The version the administration used in the days after the attacks, primarily by Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, did not include suspicions about the involvement of a Libyan extremist group with ties to al-Qaida. State Department officials objected to the inclusion of that information.
The administration has since acknowledged the involvement of Ansar al-Shariah, an extremist group with al-Qaida ties.
The White House released the emails to reporters after Republicans seized on snippets of the correspondence that became public last Friday to suggest that President Obama’s White House staff had taken an active role in altering the talking points.
In releasing them, White House officials were hoping to show that intelligence officials, not political advisers, drove the debate over the talking points.
It remained unclear why Morrell objected to the inclusion of the warnings and whether his objections or the State Department’s played the dominant role in having them removed.
After the release, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner, criticized what he called the “political nature” of the State Department’s requested changes.
“This release is long overdue, and there are relevant documents the administration has still refused to produce,” Buck said. “We hope, however, that this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come.”
Democrats — including some of Obama’s former top aides — said Wednesday morning that the administration would have to release all the emails in an effort to prove that the president had nothing to hide.
“I think they would benefit from getting all these emails out in public,” David Axelrod, a former senior adviser, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.