Las Vegas Sun

April 18, 2015

Currently: 84° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


The next Benghazi scapegoat

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Twenty years ago, when she was a young Foreign Service officer in Moscow, Victoria Nuland gave me a dazzling briefing on the diverse factions inside the Russian parliament. Now she is a friend I typically see a couple times a year, at various functions, and I have watched her rise, working with everybody from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton, serving as ambassador to NATO, and now as the spokeswoman at the State Department.

Over the past few weeks, the spotlight has turned on Nuland. The charge is that intelligence officers prepared accurate talking points after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, and that Nuland, serving her political masters, watered them down.

The charges come from two quarters, from Republicans critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi and intelligence officials shifting blame for Benghazi onto the State Department.

It’s always odd watching someone you know get turned into a political cartoon on the cable talk shows. But this case is particularly disturbing because Nuland did nothing wrong.

Let’s review the actual events. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed on Sept. 11. For this there is plenty of blame to go around. We now know, thanks to reporting by The New York Times, that Benghazi was primarily a CIA operation. Furthermore, intelligence officers underestimated how dangerous the situation was. They erred in vetting the Libyan militia that was supposed to provide security.

The next day, Nuland held a background press briefing, a transcript of which is available on the State Department’s website. She had two main points. There’s a lot we don’t know. The attack was conducted by Libyan extremists. She made no claim that it was set off by an anti-Muslim video or arose spontaneously from demonstrations.

On Sept. 14, David Petraeus, then the director of the CIA, gave a classified briefing to lawmakers in Congress. The lawmakers asked him to provide talking points so they could discuss the event in the news media.

CIA analysts began work on the talking points. Early drafts, available on Jonathan Karl’s ABC News website, reflect the confused and fragmented state of knowledge. The first draft, like every subsequent one, said the Benghazi attacks were spontaneously inspired by protests in Cairo. It also said that extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated.

The CIA analysts quickly scrubbed references to al-Qaida from the key part of the draft, investigators on Capitol Hill now tell me.

On Friday evening of Sept. 14, the updated talking points were emailed to the relevant officials in various departments, including Nuland. She wondered why the CIA was giving members of Congress talking points that were far more assertive than anything she could say or defend herself. She also noted that the talking points left the impression that the CIA had issued all sorts of warnings before the attack.

Remember, this was at a moment when the State Department was taking heat for what was mostly a CIA operation, while doing verbal gymnastics to hide the CIA’s role. Intentionally or not, the CIA seemed to be repaying the favor by trying to shift blame to the State Department for ignoring intelligence.

Nuland didn’t seek to rewrite the talking points. In fact, if you look at the drafts that were written while she was sending emails, the drafts don’t change much from one to the next. She was just kicking the process up to the policymaker level.

At this point, Nuland’s participation in the whole affair ends.

On Saturday morning, what’s called a deputies committee meeting was held at the White House. I’m told the talking points barely came up at that meeting. Instead, the CIA representative said he would take proactive measures to streamline them. That day, the agency reduced the talking points to the bare nub Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was given before going on the Sunday talk shows.

Several things were apparently happening. Each of the different players had their hands on a different piece of the elephant. If there was any piece of the talking points that everybody couldn’t agree upon, it got cut. Second, the administration proceeded with extreme caution about drawing conclusions, possibly overlearning the lessons from the Bush years. Third, as the memos moved up the CIA management chain, the higher officials made them more tepid (this is apparently typical). Finally, in the absence of a clear narrative, the talking points gravitated toward the least politically problematic story, blaming the anti-Muslim video and the Cairo demonstrations.

Is this a tale of hard intelligence being distorted for political advantage? Maybe. Did Victoria Nuland scrub the talking points to serve Clinton or President Barack Obama? That charge is completely unsupported by the evidence. She was caught in a brutal interagency turf war, and she defended her department. The accusations against her are bogus.

David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 7 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Ms. Nuland crossed the line between an honest broker as a career civil servant and political hack. It's easy to do. Service and loyalty to her boss, Hillary Clinton, preempted her duty to her country. When that happens, the best outcome is resignation/retirement. She lost all her independent credibility and hence her effectiveness.

    Carmine D

  2. When will you address the issues of the letters and not me Jeff? Not that I mind. I'm flattered to live in your mind rent mind.

    Carmine D

  3. "Carmine Jeff would actually have to pay attention to CURRENT happenings in Congress to be able to argue his point. He's simply spoon fed his points and when he's not sure he attacks you personally."

    Chuck333, Thank you. Perhaps Jeff will grow up and smarten up.

    Carmine D

  4. Jeff: Read the e-mails on the subject. You are arguing that even the CIA was "... one french fry short of a happy meal" since recently released e-mails suggest that it took the CIA some time to decide exactly WHO was attacking and why. (Note: I won't argue AGAINST applying your comment to CIA - insufficient data...).

    I see no fault with the Administration providing Rice with a carefully reviewed and coordinated set of talking points - anyone writing such in a highly bureaucratic atmosphere knows just how much fun the process is while still providing ALL high-ranking people sufficient CYA to get their approval. No matter what you say or don't say - someone is going to sic a dog on you.

    A careful reading of the reports at the time indicate that there were two installations in Benghazi - one was overtly CIA, the other was, at least overtly, State Department. Do Future and Carmine disregard the possibility that the facility attacked was actually a covert CIA operation under State Department cover - a not-unknown situation? In a sense I'm conservative - I'll not join a pile-on-festival until I have a fairly good idea what has happened. That information isn't yet available for Benghazi. Too much is still in the restricted files.

  5. Robert:

    I concede that the Benghazi, Libya attack may have been an attack on a CIA covert operation. If so, aren't the American people, and particularly, the friends and family of the 4 dead Americans, including the Ambassador, entitled to know the truth?

    The talking points and the Rice ruse, and everything done to cover up, is wrong because it was politicized by the President and his minions. Why? The election. The exact thing he and they [AND YOU] accuse the Republicans of doing.

    It is inexcusable, regardless of the truth or not about the CIA operation, that any American leader gave a stand down order on 9-11. I and others would like to know who did. [Recall Robert I said The President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense should all be ashamed-REMEMBER]. There were 6-7 hours that elapsed after the order to stand down over Benghazi. Woods and Doherty were killed at the end of that time. We'll never know for sure whether U.S. help would have saved them, but it is unconscionable that it was not tried. It's not the American way.

    Carmine D

  6. "No, we should NOT always know the truth."

    If we don't get the truth, how do you know it is better not to?

    Carmine D

  7. Get a walker/cane and/or even a wheel will need it. It's going to be a rough road ahead.

    Carmine D