Was the Benghazi non-scandal an inside job?

And should the creation of a non-scandal be a scandal?

COMMENT: The ginned-up non-scandal sur­round­ing the Beng­hazi attack is begin­ning to clar­ify, and our rumi­na­tions con­cern­ing the Petraeus affair and the suc­ces­sion of Michael J. Morell to the posi­tion of act­ing CIA direc­tor are becom­ing increas­ingly prescient.

It seemed appar­ent that Petraeus was set up to fall. (This is not to say he wasn’t a damn fool to take the bait–i.e. for­mer counter-terrorism inves­ti­ga­tor Paula Broadwell.)

Some of the bul­let points that we made in the con­text of the Petraeus affair:

• Petraeus was going to be ques­tioned about the Beng­hazi affair behind closed doors. Does this impinge on the Beng­hazi sit­u­a­tion? Might this be con­nected to the “Octo­ber Sur­prise II” that the GOP was crow­ing about last fall?
• Petraeus was also seen by the Obama admin­is­tra­tion as an ele­ment of sta­bil­ity going into the sec­ond term. Might this affair be an effort at de-stabilizing Obama?
• In the above con­text, note that neg­a­tive head­lines are dom­i­nat­ing in the wake of Obama’s re-election.
• The act­ing head of the CIA is Michael J. Morell, who gave Dubya his intel­li­gence brief­ings and was actu­ally with him on 9/11. Some observers were crit­i­cal of Morell as being too much of an insider to effec­tively coun­ter­act abuses at the agency. Is this the agency “re-righting itself”–i.e. clean­ing out an out­sider? (The agency was ini­tially reported to be leery of Petraeus, only com­ing to accept him when he adopted a “hands-off” approach to intel­li­gence mat­ters and CIA.)
• On a highly spec­u­la­tive note, we’ve read of Nazi gen­er­als named Morell dur­ing our research into the Third Reich. I won­dered if Morell might be an Under­ground Reich insert when I heard he was act­ing head of CIA and being con­sid­ered as direc­tor. A leg­end would have been cre­ated to obscure his Nazi/German/Underground Reich back­ground. This sus­pi­cion grew more pro­found when I saw Morell’s pic­ture. Again, this is admit­tedly highly spec­u­la­tive. Look at Morell’s pic­ture at right and see what you think.
• Will Mor­rell work with the GOP and Under­ground Reich against Obama?

 Since that analy­sis was posted, we have learned that Morell is of German-American extrac­tion. One won­ders if his ances­tors might have been part of the large German-American Fifth Col­umn in the United States, encom­pass­ing such orga­ni­za­tions as the Steuben Soci­ety and the Ger­man Amer­i­can Bund. (Under Cover by John Roy Carl­son, avail­able for down­load on this web­site, details that milieu.)

The thrust of the GOP charges in the Beng­hazi inci­dent are alle­ga­tions that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion denied that the attack was a ter­ror­ist inci­dent and deleted ref­er­ences to CIA warn­ings in their report.

It has now become clear that it was none other than Michael J. Morell who deleted the ref­er­ences to the ter­ror­ist warn­ings! He was opposed by David Petraeus in this attempt!

Do not fail to note that Petraeus was then sacked, leav­ing Morell in charge of the CIA! (Again, it was Morell who gave George W. Bush his intel­li­gence brief­ings and was actu­ally with him at the time of the 9/11 attacks.)

As the desta­bi­liza­tion of the Obama admin­is­tra­tion takes form, do not fail to note that the head of the IRS when the Tea Party fronts were tar­geted was a George W. Bush appointee!

At the same time, the whored-out Amer­i­can media are up in arms over the Jus­tice Department’s seiz­ing of reporters’ phone records. The phone records con­cern a story that con­tained leaked mate­r­ial about a counter-terrorism sting in Yemen.

Who leaked that mate­r­ial? Might it have been Michael J. Morell, or some­one else linked to the Bush administration/GOP/Underground Reich?

We note that that seizure of phone records could be pre­cisely cal­cu­lated to inflame the media. 

The sus­pi­cion in these quar­ters cen­ters on the 2012 leak as part of the pre-calculated desta­bi­liza­tion of Obama.

“Early E-Mails on Beng­hazi Show Inter­nal Divi­sions” by Mark Landler, Eric Schmitt and Michael D. Shear; The New York Times; 5/15/2013.

EXCERPT: E-mails released by the White House on Wednes­day revealed a fierce inter­nal jostling over the government’s offi­cial talk­ing points in the after­math of last September’s attack in Beng­hazi, Libya, not only between the State Depart­ment and the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, but at the high­est lev­els of the C.I.A.

The 100 pages of e-mails showed a dis­agree­ment between David H. Petraeus, then the direc­tor of the C.I.A., and his deputy, Michael J. Morell, over how much to dis­close in the talk­ing points, which were used by Susan E. Rice, the ambas­sador to the United Nations, in tele­vi­sion appear­ances days after the attack.

Mr. Morell, admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials said, deleted a ref­er­ence in the draft ver­sion of the talk­ing points to C.I.A. warn­ings of extrem­ist threats in Libya, which State Depart­ment offi­cials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.

Mr. Morell, offi­cials said, acted on his own and not in response to pres­sure from the State Depart­ment. But when the final draft of the talk­ing points was sent to Mr. Petraeus, he dis­missed them, say­ing “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” adding that the heav­ily scrubbed account would not sat­isfy the House Demo­c­rat who had requested it.

“This is cer­tainly not what Vice Chair­man Rup­pers­berger was hop­ing to get,” Mr. Petraeus wrote, refer­ring to Rep­re­sen­ta­tive C. A. Dutch Rup­pers­berger of Mary­land, the top Demo­c­rat on the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, which had asked Mr. Petraeus for talk­ing points to use with reporters in dis­cussing the attack on Benghazi.

The White House released the e-mails to reporters after Repub­li­cans seized on snip­pets of the cor­re­spon­dence that became pub­lic on Fri­day to sug­gest that Pres­i­dent Obama’s national secu­rity staff had been com­plicit in try­ing to alter the talk­ing points for polit­i­cal reasons.

While the e-mails por­trayed White House offi­cials as being sen­si­tive to the con­cerns of the State Depart­ment, they sug­gest that Mr. Obama’s aides mostly medi­ated a bureau­cratic tug of war between the State Depart­ment and the C.I.A. over how much to dis­close — all under heavy time con­straints because of the demands from Capi­tol Hill. The e-mails revealed no new details about the administration’s evolv­ing account of the Sept. 11 attack, which killed four Amer­i­cans, includ­ing Ambas­sador J. Christo­pher Stevens. . . .