DWS to Piers Morgan: How dare you call our entirely discredited cover story on Benghazi false, or something

posted at 10:01 am on October 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit included this in last night’s QOTD post, but it’s worth a separate look. If you’ve already watched this once, try this thought experiment the second time through.  Pretend that the topic isn’t the terrorist attack on Benghazi in 2012, but the WMD case in Iraq in 2003-4.  Suddenly, this sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

Transcript via Pro-Life Blogs and RCP:

PIERS MORGAN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who were in positions of responsibility and, we would assume, knowledge. And it’s pretty un-American, pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts. Isn’t it?

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Piers, it is not, it is not OK for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence they were given and then as the days wore on and more…

MORGAN: That turned out to be completely wrong.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, that doesn’t mean it was false.

MORGAN: What???  Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it’s false, it’s wrong. It’s both of those things.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But you’re suggesting that it’s … Piers, what you’re suggesting is that it was somehow deliberate. It was not deliberate. What they did was it was important to get information out that they had at the time. And they did that. And as they learned more information, they corrected the original information that they put out. But there was nothing sinister here. This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we did a careful investigation, gave the American people the information that they needed at the time that we had based on our best intelligence and then as more intelligence was gathered we gave the updated information. There is nothing sinister about that.

What’s terrible unfortunate though, is that you do — there’s no around these investigations that Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have left to go after the administration questioning whether or not there was any deliberate attempt to mislead. We should be closing ranks, working together to prevent this from happening again.

MORGAN: Well the answer to that Debbie, is — the answer to that is to make sure that the original statements that were made are accurate.

Morgan captures the attack from Democrats in 2003-4 pretty well, right down to the accusations of being “un-American.”  There are a couple of differences, though.  First, Piers Morgan didn’t actually accuse the White House of lying, just of rushing out with a story that turned out to be undeniably false, which also means wrong.  As Jeff Dunetz points out, those two words mean the same thing.  It’s the DNC chair who leaps to that conclusion, which might be a Freudian slip.

The other difference is in the timing.  The WMD case was made with the best intelligence available before the invasion.  This time, the White House pushed the false narrative out for more than a week after the attack, despite the fact that the Obama administration designated it a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours.  There is also a 50-minute video taken from the compound that State was watching in real time, a fact noted specifically in yesterday’s hearings, that apparently makes pretty clear the nature of the “spontaneous protest” that UN Ambassador Susan Rice insisted five days later was the catalyst for the attack.  State has yet to share that with anyone.

Democrats like Wasserman Schultz were certainly quick to equate wrong with lie in 2003-4.  In this case, it’s revealing that she leapt to that same connection before Morgan did.

Update: Guy Benson e-mails me to explain the “un-American” reference from Morgan, which puzzled me.

FYI, the reason Piers Morgan brought up “un-American” is that a few seconds before that clip starts, DWS was calling Republicans un-American for asking tough questions about the Benghazi attack.  She started the patriotism games…Morgan was just hoisting her by her own petard.

That makes it much more clear.  And even better.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hawk was on this earlier today.

Something’s happening in the media. Rats. Ship. Water. Some assembly required.

Of course, all this means is that they can claim objectivity when we start scrolling KIA lists across the bottom of the screen again.

Washington Nearsider on October 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Piers Morgan? Seriously?

Well, a broken clock … and all that.

aunursa on October 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM

great thought experiment and yes, I see what you mean.

People died, then Obama lied.

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM

When even Piers Morgan can see it…it’s blatant.

Bob's Kid on October 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

It was a deliberate lie, Debbie Clowner.

And if you’re not sure of what happened in the first 24 hours, how do you know it was a movie trailer that caused the outrage, for a movie that nobody had heard about.

It’s almost as if someone knew in advance about planned demonstrations and attacks and had their cover story at the ready.

rbj on October 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

And yet again we see why the DNC has had Debbie Downer on ice for a few weeks now. The dogs Obama ate as a child had more intellectually honest arguments to support their causes.

Sugar Land on October 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Oh, for crying out loud.

They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence they were given and then as the days wore on and more

No they didn’t. The best information that they had was that it was a terroist attack. They didn’t think up the connection to the Egyptian demonstrations – were were against that stupid video – until some five hours later.

Lies, and more lies.

ss396 on October 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Man, I can only take that woman in 30 sec doses. Anything longer and my IQ starts shrinking.

Oil Can on October 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Meh. I thought Piers was too easy on DWS. She is like a scratched CD that keeps skipping backward and repeating the same thing over and over again.

Mitsouko on October 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Something’s happening in the media. Rats. Ship. Water. Some assembly required.

No instructions needed.

HiJack on October 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM

And…this is why DWS has been benched lately.

Spannerhead on October 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM

SMACKDOWN!!

Trey Gowdy at the hearing yesterday, shaming them and naming them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2axws-xR8&feature=player_embedded

mountainaires on October 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Dws smackdown

Love it

Unfortunately she would get full support if/when she is on msdnc

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM

DNC Today:

They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence they were given and then as the days wore on and more…

DNC after seeing the same intelligence as G.W. Bush and voting to authorize the war in Iraq:

Bush lied people died

STL_Vet on October 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM

With the State Departmetn saying one thing and the administration saying another thing and the spokesman (that was a man, wasn’t it) saying something else, is the strategy here to completely confuse the issue?

dirtseller on October 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM

“Piers! How dare you speak the truth on a friendly cable network!?

Sugar Land on October 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Ever since DWS and obama’s FLUKE went on “tour” together, DWS has been extra BUTCH and confused.

Pork-Chop on October 11, 2012 at 10:13 AM

CNN, with nothing to lose, has decided to try actual journalism in a bid to improve ratings.

meci on October 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM

In real life I get the feeling DWS does not smile very much:
Her smiles are only facsimiles of the real thing and poorly timed at that.

Very creepy.

Sherman1864 on October 11, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Trey Gowdy R-SC on America’s Newsroom now.

1. multiple requests for addt’l security
2. no guarantee that other embassies aren’t at risk
3. why were Americans misled, deceived–negligent, reckless, intentional?

wants Rice UNDER OATH on who gave her information about video as well as Jay Carney

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That total idiot woman doesn’t have a clue that the whole nation is laughing at her. Who were the mental midgets that put her in congress? Hopefully they are rightly ashamed at their desecration of the Constitution.

ultracon on October 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Gowdy is going after Rice—-hard.

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Please turn off that F’ing autoplay commercial on the right.

kcluva on October 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM

And…this is why DWS has been benched lately.

Spannerhead on October 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Yup, and they bring her out to pinch hit in the bottom of the 8th…

and…..the whiff…….

Go back under your rock, you lying hag.

Amazing that Pravda’s Washington News Bureau actually does random acts of journalism, rare as they may be.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on October 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The WMD case was made with the best intelligence available before the invasion. This time, the White House pushed the false narrative out for more than a week after the attack, despite the fact that the Obama administration designated it a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours.

great point!

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:18 AM

There is also a 50-minute video taken from the compound that State was watching in real time, a fact noted specifically in yesterday’s hearings, that apparently makes pretty clear the nature of the “spontaneous protest” that UN Ambassador Susan Rice insisted five days later was the catalyst for the attack. State has yet to share that with anyone.

oh the hell you say……….. yes, let us see the video!

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It’s almost as if someone knew in advance about planned demonstrations and attacks and had their cover story at the ready.

rbj on October 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

This is something that has been bothering me for a while. How did the embassy in Egypt know about this “video” in the first place and why did they tweet out an apology BEFORE any protests started? The video had already been uploaded to YouTube for several months before all of these embassy attacks. It only had been viewed a couple hundred times before September 11th.

This administration has been acting like there was “supposed to be” a protest in Bengazi(like there has been everywhere else) and some miscreants used that opportunity to get carried away. Why would they assume it was a protest that got out of control when there wasn’t a protest?

To me this looks just as organized as an SEIU sit-in at some banker’s house only it is in front of our embassies in 26 different countries. /tinfoil hat

Mord on October 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The administration must feel an incredible sense of helplessness in this disaster they created. It’s bad enough the Republicans won’t let go, but now their friends in the MSM are hanging on to the story like ticks on a dog.

The more Waffen-SS Schultz talks, the more inadvertent truth comes out. Well, the mess is all their own fault. If their best intel at the start was it was all spontaneous, then later discovered it was a terror attack, they simply should have said so. Instead, they kept to the original lie/mistake in a puerile sandbox-socialist attempt to save face.

I don’t think these people realize their precious Obama’s narcissism is going to ruin them in the end. They’ll forever remain part of the Dem political machine, but a future of higher esteem or office is pretty much out the window for good.

Liam on October 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM

That was like watching a wooden post talking to a rock.

Good Lt on October 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM

‘You are flogging the wrong dead horse’ :)… Debbie is shocked at the Brit’s ‘inelegant’ choice of idiom :)

jimver on October 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I watched the whole C-Span hearing yesterday… Lamb (at State) said she was in continuous contact with Benghazi during the attack. When she was asked yesterday, “If there wasn’t a peep on the street before the coordinated attack as we now know, when was the narrative of ‘There was a protest related to the Youtube video’ added to the account of events that night? … crickets.

RedManBlueState on October 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Debbie uses the pandering teacherish lib tactic of closing her eyes, smirking and looking down while scolding Piers on his thoughtcrime.

Keep doing that Debbie, you and your something-about-mary bangs…..

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

CNN, with nothing to lose, has decided to try actual journalism in a bid to improve ratings.

meci on October 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM

They keep this up and I may become a regular viewer. Except for when Soledad is on.

Doughboy on October 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Does DWS project protest too much?

GarandFan on October 11, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Debbie is no different than her leader in chief! She and Obama are peas in a pod!
I hope Karen Harrington wins big in Broward Coundy Florida
If you can donate to Karen Harrington please do at

http://www.karenforcongress.com/

Delsa on October 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Pretend that the topic isn’t the terrorist attack on Benghazi in 2012, but the WMD case in Iraq in 2003-4. Suddenly, this sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

Only if you think predicting tomorrow’s lottery numbers is awfully similar to reporting yesterday’s lottery numbers.

Ronnie on October 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM

OT: Alex Karras passes away at 77

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Hawk was on this earlier today.

Something’s happening in the media. Rats. Ship. Water. Some assembly required.

Washington Nearsider on October 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I’m thinking not the media as a whole, but certainly CNN.

I think they are trying to position themselves as the neutral arbiter between FNC and MSNBC. Which is certainly a sensible game for them to try to play, simply from a business standpoint. I also think there is a culture there that really doesn’t like the way the WH has expected the press corps to play lap dog for them.

Which makes me think the debate with Crowley moderating might be interesting…

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

MORGAN: That turned out to be completely wrong.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, that doesn’t mean it was false.

MORGAN: What??? Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it’s false, it’s wrong. It’s both of those things.

Discuss.

Paul-Cincy on October 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You do a good job of distinguishing between the WMD situation and the Libyan (sp.) debacle.

For this situation to be remotely analogous to the WMD situation in Iraq, the Bush administration would have had to announce that we had actually found WMDs after the invasion and before it became clear that we weren’t going to find any.

35tww on October 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM

…what happened to the improvement to her looks?
…some wicked storm wash it away?
…did they trot her out because she’s the only thing worse than the Big Bird campaign and can make people forget?

KOOLAID2 on October 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Maybe Obama brought her out to throw her under the bus?

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But you’re suggesting that it’s … Piers, what you’re suggesting is that it was somehow deliberate. It was not deliberate.

[wishful thinking]

MORGAN: So you’re suggesting that Obama was not deliberately speaking? …that someone else was controlling the President’s actions? Please, who is this puppeteer that is pulling the strings? Please name names! Is President Obama the Manchurian candidate?

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

SMACKDOWN!!

Trey Gowdy at the hearing yesterday, shaming them and naming them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2axws-xR8&feature=player_embedded

mountainaires on October 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Thanks for the link. I love the way Trey Gowdy absolutely destroys these liars. So glad he’s on our side.

magicbeans on October 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

However other cnn reporters said nothing new came to light at the hearing…. they’re still covering for the one

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I’m hoping some journalists are experiencing and Woodward and Bernstein moment. The knowledge that an in-depth story about a serious event and/or crime (F&F, Benghazi, etc), and the cover-up, can bring down a president.

Although most of the media is in the bag for Obama, there are a few that aren’t and a few that would throw the entire administration under the bus to make a name for themselves.

GAlpha10 on October 11, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Which makes me think the debate with Crowley moderating might be interesting…

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I wouldn’t bet on it, more likely a campaign to provide them a background of the appearance of impartiality for the debate so that when they are anything but impartial they can claim, look at our coverage before the debate, we are impartial.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Piers Morgan? My irony meter just took a direct hit from a 155.

He was FIRED from his editor role at the Daily Mirror for knowingly publishing a false story about war crimes committed by British troops in Iraq. The entire thing was fabricated, he knew it, went to press, and then said it was false but accurate.

Oy vey.

CorporatePiggy on October 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This time, the White House pushed the false narrative out for more than a week after the attack, despite the fact that the Obama administration designated it a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours.

This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we couldn’t be blamed for igniting this attack because of our incessant chest thumping over the OBL kill during the previous 3 weeks.

Flora Duh on October 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM

‘You are flogging the wrong dead horse’ :)… Debbie is shocked at the Brit’s ‘inelegant’ choice of idiom :)

jimver on October 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

The Obama admin has perfected the talking-points robot. Watch the Sunday shows — Rice, Plouffe, et al, they use the exact same words in the exact same order on each of the shows. And in the case of DWS, over and over and over again.

Another thing I’ve noticed is how often the Obama admin minions are appealing to the personal relationship (and “CARE”) that Obama has with persons or a situation, as if to say, of COURSE Obama is totally concerned with this situation, as he has a personal connection to it. For example, that Obama personally picked, knows, and liked the murdered Libyan ambassador. So, Obama favors those he knows personally? That’s just cronyism, favoritism. Or, are we to suppose that Obama “doing the best he can” is “good enough”? THAT’S not the standard. Maybe his “doing his best” isn’t good enough! Maybe Obama’s best efforts result in a miserable failure. The minions don’t seem to understand that.

Paul-Cincy on October 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM

This is something that has been bothering me for a while. How did the embassy in Egypt know about this “video” in the first place and why did they tweet out an apology BEFORE any protests started? The video had already been uploaded to YouTube for several months before all of these embassy attacks. It only had been viewed a couple hundred times before September 11th.

This administration has been acting like there was “supposed to be” a protest in Bengazi(like there has been everywhere else) and some miscreants used that opportunity to get carried away. Why would they assume it was a protest that got out of control when there wasn’t a protest?

To me this looks just as organized as an SEIU sit-in at some banker’s house only it is in front of our embassies in 26 different countries. /tinfoil hat

Mord on October 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Mord, the whole thing is bothering me. A Coptic Christian emigrants from Egypt (knowing how sensitive Muslims are about their fake profit Mohammed), comes to America. O.K., get your family out of a bad situation (see also, Jews in 1933 Germany). You’re the sole bread winner for your family and struggle to make ends meet, so you get involved in a check kiting scheme, get caught and are facing years in prison. O.K. That I buy. You turn states evidence in exchange for probation. O.K. I buy that.

So now you are deeper in debt after trial expenses. What’s the last thing on your list of things to do: spend more money making a movie that mocks Mohammed (while deceiving the actors) and upload it to youtube, thus simultaneously violating terms of your probation (deceiving, using an alias, using a computer/accessing the internet) and guaranteeing you won’t make any money back, putting yourself even further in debt.

If you remember Randy Weaver & Ruby Ridge, the FBI basically entrapped him into making a sawed off shotgun so they could use the threat of prison time to turn him into a informant on white supremacists. I hate conspiracy theories, but a guy with financial problems and no movie making ability decides to make a movie that he knows is going to cause riots, cost him money he’s not going to recoup and do so in a manner that violates his probation? I can’t buy that. Unless he was told by someone to make that movie. Or else.

rbj on October 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Maybe Obama brought her out to throw her under the bus?

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Not a chance, the Democrat’s love Debbie does Satan Waffen-SS Schultz because they know that she will do anything, absolutely anything to advance the Democrat Marxist cause.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Out of curiousity, I went to a thesarus this morning to look up the word “false.”

The DEFINITION of the word “false” is “WRONG.”

matthew8787 on October 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

The WMD case was made with the best intelligence available before the invasion. This time, the White House pushed the false narrative out for more than a week after the attack, despite the fact that the Obama administration designated it a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours.

And, to be fair to the Bush Administration, when it became obvious that the WMD’s weren’t there, they fessed up and admitted to it. There was never (AFAIK) any attempt to pull the wool over the American people’s eyes.

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Great linky of gowdy

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

from a big bird to a dodo bird.

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM

It’s bad enough the Republicans won’t let go, but now their friends in the MSM are hanging on to the story like ticks on a dog.

No, they are not. The MSM are coming grudgingly to the story, kicking and screaming at every chance.

Minimal coverage given the magnitude of this event and the subsequent scandal.

matthew8787 on October 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Here’s the thing that bothers me about this. Let’s say that the admin is telling the truth and that the attacks really weren’t pre-planned terrorists attacks but instead a reaction to the video.

How does that change the fact that Obama’s response was to apologize for American’s having the right to free speech and saying that nobody should insult mohammad? His response, regardless of what he knew and when he knew it, was un-American, weak, stupid, vapid, and dangerous.

Romney was correct from the start. You don’t say “sorry for a citizen voicing an opinion”. He should say “We have the right to free speech in this country and you need to grow up and stop acting like absolute stone-age barbarians.”

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Gotcha swalker

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I wouldn’t bet on it, more likely a campaign to provide them a background of the appearance of impartiality for the debate so that when they are anything but impartial they can claim, look at our coverage before the debate, we are impartial.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

You might want to avoid pouring so much paranoid on your hotcakes in the morning.

Tell ya what… go watch some of CNN’s coverage from Oct 3, after the debate. Watch what Crowley had to say about Lehrer. If they wanted to provide cover, that was the night. And they sure as hell didn’t.

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Ding ding ding matthew

cmsinaz on October 11, 2012 at 10:42 AM

It’s bad enough the Republicans won’t let go, but now their friends in the MSM are hanging on to the story like ticks on a dog.

No, they are not. The MSM are coming grudgingly to the story, kicking and screaming at every chance.

Minimal coverage given the magnitude of this event and the subsequent scandal.

matthew8787 on October 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Exactly, had this happened under GW, the entire Fifth Column Treasonous Media would be screaming about it 24/7 and demanding impeachment hearings begin immediately.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Thanks for the link. I love the way Trey Gowdy absolutely destroys these liars. So glad he’s on our side.

magicbeans on October 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM

He didn’t even mention Hillary droning on about the video next to the coffin of the Libyan ambassador, which Krauthammer highlighted, which I think is the most visible, salient example of this administration’s lies and coverup of what really happened. As always, they think they can fabricate a story out of nothing, and expect the MSM to run with it, and that people will believe it, with the only criticism being that Mitt shouldn’t have mentioned how the Obama admin was apologizing for our First Amendment after what happened in Egypt. I have no doubt if it was up to Obama, he’d put several exceptions to free speech in the First Amendment.

Paul-Cincy on October 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM

let us see the video!

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It, uh…currently seems to be unavailable. Issa wants it and hasn’t been able to get it. The FBI doesn’t have it and all Kennedy would tell Issa yesterday is that “another part of the government” has the tape.

lynncgb on October 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM

ALTERNATE TITLE: DESPERATE DEM SKANK RESURFACES IN TIME FOR ELECTION STRETCH RUN

The War Planner on October 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Meh. This is just a bunch of liberals — media and political — scrambling frantically to find their dropped hymn book — so they can all resume singing the same words to the same old tune. For them, Benghazi is just a temporary, unlooked-for intrusion by reality into their fantasy world.

Scriptor on October 11, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Apparently there is a limit on how long I can listen to her… I just figure she is lying anyway.

rgranger on October 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Remember the LIES DWS told at the DNC and was busted!! Piers should have called her out on her dedication to mislead.

Jackalope on October 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Shes back! Probably on a short leash since she fell out of favor. That, or no one else wanted to defend Barrys record.

Philly on October 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Whats up with Morgan lately? Some scales fall off of his eyes all of a sudden?

AndStatistics on October 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

JohnGalt23,

Correction: There were WMD found in Iraq. Ignored by the media. Thousands of Mustard Gas artillery rounds, for example. Just not in the quantities that Saddam admitted he had and our intelligence thought. Where it all went? Who knows. Syria? Still hidden? Those who know either aren’t talking or are dead.

But you are correct in that once the Bush administration realized that the quantities of WMD weren’t there, they admitted it.

GAlpha10 on October 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

two words mean the same thing.  It’s the DNC chair who leaps to that conclusion, which might be a Freudian slip.

Might be? That’s giving her more of the benefit of the doubt than I’m willing to concede. More likely it’s simply how she reflexively does damage control. The truth is not important; CYA is. Party Über Alles.

Cleombrotus on October 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I wouldn’t bet on it, more likely a campaign to provide them a background of the appearance of impartiality for the debate so that when they are anything but impartial they can claim, look at our coverage before the debate, we are impartial.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

OT…did you see the polls showing Romney up 8% in Cali? :) A drop in the ocean, for sure, but makes me ecstatic nevertheless :)…If the trend continues and the gas price stays this high, maybe some in the moochers hordes stay home on election day…and then who knows :)… The unthinkable happens :)….

jimver on October 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

. They didn’t think up the connection to the Egyptian demonstrations – were were against that stupid video – until some five hours later.

Lies, and more lies.

ss396 on October 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The Egyptian demonstrations were not against the video either. They were planned, known to the Egyptian government as late as 4 September 2012, published on the internet in the Arab world (I read about the planned Cairo protest the day BEFORE on PJMedia.com), and the stated purpose was to demand the release of the Blind Sheikh. The video was a sideshow, as the planners of the protest, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Egyptian government, but I repeat myself, had prompted one Egyptian television show to air minute fragments of it on a show the weekend prior to the attack.

Resist We Much on October 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Obama was for going with wrong before he went with false…

albill on October 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Soooo….”Obama lied, people died.”

SailorMark on October 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM

“Please turn off that F’ing autoplay commercial on the right.”

kcluva on October 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Ummm. In case you are not already aware, pls consider that the ‘commercial’ you speak of may be unique to your browsing-experience, based on your ‘browsing experience”.

Tsar of Earth on October 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I just wonder….if this momentum continues to build and if there is a snowball’s chance that Mitt could steal California??

crazy talk today, but ….you never know…

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

This situation is not similar to the WMD case. In 2003, intelligence and administration officials believed the intelligence to be true that Saddam had WMDs. There was poor intelligence and it was true that officials did not weigh conflicting information seriously enough. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that Bush officials knew the intelligence was false while pressing forward on the case for removing Saddam.

In the present matter,the administration knew within hours that this was a premeditated militant Islamist attack. Despite this, Obama and his people lied for several weeks about it, claiming that it was “spontaneous” and that a cheesy movie trailer made them do it. That’s a significant fundamental difference.

charlesbird on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Romney should make an ad with Debbie’s false/wrong in Libya and tie it in with “Mother of Slain State Dept. Official Tired of Being Lied To and Stonewalled by Obama Administration”

albill on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Obama, personally, chose Joe Biden to be his Vice-President and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to head the DNC.

Says everything.

Resist We Much on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Soooo….”Obama lied, people died.”

SailorMark on October 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I think to make the order correct it is “People died, obama lied”

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

So can they let the video guy out of jail now. Since the current blame is going on the Republicans for cutting funding, he should be in the clear.

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM

LMAO….

She just keeps crawling out from underneath that bus!

DWS – The Republican candidates best friend.

Tim_CA on October 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Man, I can only take that woman in 30 sec doses. Anything longer and my IQ starts shrinking.

Oil Can on October 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Looking at her, I’m guessing it wasn’t just your IQ that was shrinking.

CurtZHP on October 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM

This situation is not similar to the WMD case. In 2003, intelligence and administration officials believed the intelligence to be true that Saddam had WMDs….

charlesbird on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

True. Also, Democrats argued that Saddam had WMD before Bush ever became President.

No Republicans ever claimed that Benghazi was a “spontaneous uprising” caused by a “vile and despicable video.”

In fact, those that argued that it was a terrorist attack were accused of “shooting first and aiming later.”

Resist We Much on October 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I think the Romney campaign should run two ads. One claiming that WH and State knowingly mislead the public for weeks.

In the other ad, they can portray WH and State as bumbling idiots who can’t get information from State dept. up to Susan Rice, Carney, and Obama.

On each ad, they can put something like “Which is it? See the other ad at Romney.com”.

hawksruleva on October 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Little Debbie cannot have more than 2 or 3 functioning synapse connections.

rplat on October 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I just wonder….if this momentum continues to build and if there is a snowball’s chance that Mitt could steal California??

crazy talk today, but ….you never know…

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

California is Romney’s for the taking, all he has to do is show up and have this webpage turned into a big ole poster and tell Californians, if this is what you want to become the new normal then vote for Obama. Californian’s are only liberals until it hit’s their own personal pocketbook.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

It’s bizarre. They claim it was based on the intelligence they had when it’s precisely contrary to the intelligence they had. The claim would tenable if, and only if, they count as “intelligence” their own gratuitous theories about the cause of the action contrary to that intelligence. But why would they doubt what they knew and promulgate theories about spontaneous film protests? Better asked, why would they imagine that a consequence of doing so would NOT be the mess they find themselves in now?

Your best “intelligence at the time” was that more security than you provided was needed. Your best “intelligence at the time” was that the consulate was overrun because what you provided was inadequate. Your best “intelligence at the time” was that this had nothing to do with a lame video, or “the Arab street” freaking out.

Your lamest damage control was obviously more important.

rasqual on October 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I think to make the order correct it is “People died, obama lied”

ted c on October 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Riiiiiight. It really needs to be put into terms that are that simple, though. I don’t know about you, but the voters where I work are so low-info that some of them were talking about changing their vote over Big Bird. It’s astounding that they’re so unaware of the world around them, and they need to be fed pablum like “People died, Obama lied.” That was actually effective among these morons when they did it with Bush.

SailorMark on October 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I need a Halloween scarecrow for my yard, I hope Debbie and her broom are available.

Wade on October 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Is that Chelsea Clinton? Alinsky 101 allover again.

ahlaphus on October 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM

So “Bush lied, people died” is now over-ruled by Democratic necessity to save Obama’s lyin’ butt.

profitsbeard on October 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM

California is Romney’s for the taking

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Seriously? Are you back on this again?

Even after gaining 8 points in CA…

The poll data released Wednesday showed Obama 53%, Romney 39%, in California.

Where I come from, 14 points behind does not equate to “Romney’s for the taking”. It is something closer to “Pit of Despair.

Resources spent here on Romney’s behalf would be wasted.

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

DWS to Piers Morgan: How dare you call our entirely discredited cover story on Benghazi false, or something

DWS tosses another shovel-full out of the hole she, Obama, and his merry band of Chicago thugs are standing in.

farsighted on October 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Piers was merely playing.

CNN and his real work are the one-liner summaries of DWS’s saying scrolling through her response. And these summaries are pro-WH. This trick works very well with people walking by glancing at the screen, at home or in airport of public place.

Don’t be fooled into thinking CNN and Piers changing their spots.

vnohara on October 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Resources spent here on Romney’s behalf would be wasted.

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Yes, and Ron Paul actually had a chance of being POTUS. Sorry, but you cognitive and predictive skills leave more than a little to be desired.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2