Obama aides internally disputed terrorism finding for several days, sources say

The day after U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told five Sunday shows that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous mob actions and not premeditated, Fox News has learned, U.S. intelligence officials contacted independent security contractors to review critical evidence in the case.  

Their purpose was to help these officials rebut Ambassador Rice’s claim in a high-stakes internal dispute that was still taking place at the highest levels of the intelligence community and the Obama administration, sources close to the process tell Fox News. 

The disclosure shows that U.S. policymakers and intelligence chieftains were debating how to characterize the Benghazi attacks fully five days after the Obama administration had made a secret finding that the attacks were indeed an act of terrorism.  

That determination, or finding – arrived at within twenty-four hours of the killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans – helped the administration move money, men, and material under a post-September 11, 2001 statute, as Fox News and other news organizations have previously reported.

And yet the debate went on – a fact that has not been previously disclosed.  The internal dispute ended for good when Matthew G. Olsen, chief of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified publicly before the Senate on Wednesday, September 19 that he considered the Benghazi murders acts of terrorism.  

The move by high-level intelligence officials to secure assessments from independent security contractors in the Benghazi case helped tip the scales internally, in the forty-eight hours leading up to Olsen’s appearance before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sources tell Fox News. 

Specifically, the outside contractors were asked to review CBS News video footage taken shortly after the attacks of the annex that is located a half-mile away from the Benghazi consulate compound, and which was the site where two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed.

The contractors zeroed in on the mortar rounds fired at the annex, examining the impact angles and fragmentation patterns, to determine – easily and without any internal dispute – that there had been at least two mortar teams present.

The teams were evidently skilled in their use of mortar arms, because their shots were direct hits and there was no evidence of “bracketing fire.” This is a trial-and-error approach whereby the shooter, not having precise targeting data, will deliberately aim seventy-five or a hundred yards left or right of where he thinks the target is, and squeeze off three to four rounds before fixing the exact target. This in turn indicates that the teams used GPS devices and “dialed in” the targets: all evidence of a premeditated attack.

This determination by the outside contractors validated the existing view of the high-level intelligence officials who had contacted them, and served as ammunition in the officials’ own internal battle to rebut the claims that Rice had perpetuated on the Sunday shows the day before.  Olsen would testify the day after the contractors rendered their assessments.

The only glimpse the administration has yet offered into the possibility that the intelligence community has been racked by internal disputes has been a statement released this past Friday by a spokesman for James R. Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence.

Initially, the statement said, “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.” Intelligence briefers conveyed that assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, the statement said, “who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”

“As we learned more about the attack,” the statement added, “we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

“The business of intelligence has become politicized,” said one of the contractors who performed the evidence review.  “That’s just a sad fact, regardless of which party is in charge.”

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

King calls for Rice resignation over Libya story, Kerry defends

A top Republican called Friday for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to resign over her "misleading" statements on the Libya terror attack -- escalating a brewing battle between lawmakers and the administration over the changing narrative.

Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, told National Review that he thinks Rice should resign over the controversy. He was referring to her repeated claims during interviews on the Sunday after the attack that the strike was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests in Cairo over an anti-Islam film -- though officials now acknowledge it was a coordinated terror attack.

"She is America's foreign policy spokesman to the world," King said. "The fact is she gave out information which was either intentionally or unintentionally misleading and wrong, and there should be consequences for that. And I don’t see how she didn’t know how … that information was wrong.”

He called for a “full investigation.”

King’s statement, the first call by a top-ranking lawmaker for a resignation in connection with the controversy, triggered a swift response from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who leapt to Rice’s defense. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was “deeply disturbed by efforts to find the politics instead of finding the facts in this debate.”

“Everyone who cares about the four fallen Americans in Benghazi would do well to take a deep breath about what happened and allow Secretary Clinton's proactive, independent investigation to proceed,” he said in a statement. “I’m particularly troubled by calls for Ambassador Rice’s resignation. She is a remarkable public servant for whom the liberation of the Libyan people has been a personal issue and a public mission. She's an enormously capable person who has represented us at the United Nations with strength and character.”

King’s statement, though, was a sign he perhaps wasn’t satisfied by the claim by the nation's top intelligence official Friday that administration officials who initially said the attack was spontaneous did so based on intelligence officials' guidance.

The statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, was put out late Friday -- the statement appeared to take the blame for the confusion, and also marked a complete reversal from the administration’s initial claims about the origin of the strike.

"As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists," Turner said. "It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with or sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Turner, though, sought to explain that officials who discussed the attack as spontaneous did so based on intelligence community assessments.

"In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo," he said. "We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving."

However, sources have told Fox News that intelligence officials knew within 24 hours the attack that left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead was terrorism, and that they suspected it was tied to Al Qaeda.

It's unclear, then, why the intelligence community told Executive Branch officials it was spontaneous. In the midst of the changing story, King and other Republicans have complained that they were misled by the administration. They pointed to briefings as well as Rice’s Sunday show comments.

Meanwhile, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are raising questions about security at the compound in Benghazi. All members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote to the State Department on Thursday asking for additional details about security at U.S. diplomatic posts and for a fuller explanation of the attacks on U.S. compounds in Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

Collins presses White House to clear up questions on prostitution scandal

Sen. Susan Collins is asking the White House for more information about the Colombia prostitution scandal after the lead federal investigator said White House personnel may have been involved. 

In a letter sent to the White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler on Friday, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee wrote: 

"While the (Secret Service), Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Drug Enforcement Agency have all investigated the actions of their personnel in Cartagena and made the results of those investigations available to the Committee, to date the Administration has not explained the apparent inconsistency between its investigation and the findings of the DHS OIG." 

Collins was referencing a Sept. 22 letter to Collins' committee from Department of Homeland Security Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards. He wrote that his office's investigation found "a hotel registry that suggests that two (non-Secret Service) personnel may have had contact with foreign nationals." 

One of those employees, Edwards wrote, was a Defense Department employee "affiliated" with the White House Communication Agency. 

The other, he said, "may have been" affiliated with the White House advance team. The White House, though, denied wrongdoing on the part of that team member. 

The letter came two days after a FoxNews.com report revealed possible White House advance team involvement. 

In the letter sent to White House counsel on Friday, Collins quoted the IG's letter, saying: "These findings appear at odds with a statement made on April 23 by the White House spokesman." 

Collins was referencing Press Secretary Jay Carney's claim at the time that there were "no specific, credible allegations of misconduct" and that a review "came to the conclusion that there's no indication that any member of the White House advance team engaged in any improper conduct or behavior." 

Collins is now asking: 

"At the time of the incidents, what positions did these two individuals occupy on the White House or White House-affiliated staffs (including but not limited to the advance team or the White House Communications Agency, and including paid or volunteer positions)?" 

Additional questions directed to White House counsel include details on these two individuals' job duties, what office they were working for on the Cartagena trip and the names of their supervisors. 

Collins also asked for descriptions of the incidents they were allegedly involved in, and the findings and outcome of any investigation into those incidents. 

Collins asked for a response from the White House by Oct. 9. 

In response to the inspector general's letter to Collins on Sept. 22, the White House said the person mentioned as a possible member of the White House advance team was an unpaid volunteer who was not on the White House staff. An administration official also said the volunteer was wrongly implicated based on inaccurate hotel records. 

Contact Jana Winter at jana.winter@foxnews.com 

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More