WaPo fact checker: Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?

posted at 10:01 am on May 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Give Glenn Kessler credit; he was almost alone among the mainstream media in immediately calling Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the Benghazi consulate fishy, awarding her two Pinocchios at the time. (Perhaps not too much credit, says Ann Althouse, via Instapundit.)  Should that get bumped up now that whistleblowers are prepared to blow the Obama administration’s fairy tale on Benghazi out of the water?  Kessler argues, correctly, that the better question is who crafted the four-Pinocchio lie, and to what purpose:

Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.

The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism. …

The version as of Friday morning, Sept. 14, 2012, was rather fulsome, saying that “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — strongly objected to this draft. The CIA made some changes but apparently it was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”

Minutes later, a White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications) e-mailed to say that the State Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.

The result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike Morell.

Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been mentioned.

Kessler’s right, but his scope is too narrow.  The rewrite has always appeared to be a cover-up from the White House and/or State Department — and make no mistake, the CIA wouldn’t be carrying water for Hillary Clinton and State.  The big question is: what were they trying to cover?  In my column for The Week, I argue that the context is much broader, and it’s perhaps even more relevant today than ever:

Recall that the attack took place in the middle of the general election, just a couple of weeks after the party conventions. Obama and the Democrats had just argued that the administration’s foreign-policy successes, including the intervention in Libya, showed that America had a steady and seasoned commander-in-chief, and that voters should think twice before electing an untried Mitt Romney.

On the ground in Benghazi, however, the truth was that the sudden vacuum of power had liberated not eastern Libya but the Islamist terrorist networks that had long operated there. Militias competed with the weak central government’s forces for control of Benghazi, and terrorists ran much of what lay outside of the city. Other Western nations packed up their diplomatic installations and headed back to Tripoli, but not the United States. Instead, the U.S. kept its consulate open while reducing its security forces even in the face of intelligence of increasing danger, and escalating attacks on Western assets. …

To ask Clinton’s question again, what difference at this point would it have made? It’s possible that the team could have gotten on the ground in time to repel the second attack, although the timing would have been close. If the hearings focus on this one issue, though, it will miss the real failures in Benghazi.

The administration’s intervention in Libya created a power vacuum in eastern Libya, which it refused to acknowledge, and which eventually led not just to this attack but the near-sacking of Mali, which was prevented only by the French military. Instead, State under Clinton reduced the security at this outpost while our allies fled the city, even while nearby terrorist attacks increased. No one in State or the White House prepared for the obvious al Qaeda interest in attacking vulnerable American assets on the anniversary of 9/11. When the inevitable happened, rather than putting all our assets in play to fight the terrorists, the first impulse of Obama and Clinton seems to have been to deny that a terrorist attack had taken place at all as a means of covering up the gross incompetence of the past year in Libya.

With the administration beating war drums over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if somewhat half-heartedly, a full and honest accounting of Benghazi and the Obama administration’s Libya policies in general makes a great deal of difference at this or any other point.

The point of the cover-up wasn’t just to preserve the argument that Barack Obama had fatally weakened al-Qaeda, which few really believed anyway.  It was to preserve the foreign-policy expertise argument in the 2012 presidential election, and to keep American voters from seeing the true scope of the disaster of Obama’s intervention in Libya.  And that matters even more now, with the same administration considering another 30,00o-foot intervention that would end up once again benefiting al-Qaeda affiliates on the ground.

Michael Ramirez argues that it matters in another way — that the cover-up of Benghazi is at least as bad as that of Watergate, and perhaps worse, since no one died in Watergate and we didn’t lose a consulate to terrorists:

ramirez-benghazi

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


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 3

I think once you get to 4 Pinncchios, the next level up is a bloody handed Gepetto. Especially when there’s a body count.

CitizenEgg on May 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Fmeh. Failing newspaper finds a nugget to try and salvage a few subscribers who aren’t brain-addled leftist dolts.

One halfhearted attempt to seem unbiased can’t atone for the slobbering sycophancy of the last 5 years. If you jackasses had done your job starting back in 2007 we wouldn’t be dealing with the coverup of 4 dead Americans today.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Great piece Ed

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?

Valerie Jarret.

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM

From Michael Ramirez’s pen to God’s ear…

Midas on May 7, 2013 at 10:10 AM

It was the “intelligence community”. Now move along.

forest on May 7, 2013 at 10:11 AM

“I am not a crook.”

Barack Hussein Obama

Khun Joe on May 7, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her.

No, it’s not. She’s a mindless drone with no thoughts of her own? We have no idea what she knew at the time, and it’s more likely she knew the truth than not, so her crime against this nation borders on treason.

HopeHeFails on May 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Shame, nothing will be done about it. I gave up hope for any justice when cliton was in the whitehouse.

jsunrise on May 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Give Glenn Kessler credit

No. Kessler would have given a Republican Pinnochios to an exponential level for this pack of lies. And nobody was buying that YouTube video excuse even as Rice was out there lying her ass off. The lies were further exposed this week and confirmed that it was the White House and not the IC that is at fault. But we already knew that.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Those people (especially the COM) should not have been there in the first place. Sec State is responsible for her people. If security was inadequate, her people should have been pulled out. Will anyone be held accountable?

SwabJockey on May 7, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The kenyan is a control freak (or his puppetmaster soros and jarret).

No way he did no do this or sign off on it.

However, expect some low level bureacrat to take the fall.

Expect the media to cover for 1/2 day then move on to important things like kardasian’s dog being ill.

acyl72 on May 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Who cares? Nothing will come of this dog and pony show. The MSM won’t allow it.

RedNewEnglander on May 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her.

No, it’s not. She’s a mindless drone with no thoughts of her own? We have no idea what she knew at the time, and it’s more likely she knew the truth than not, so her crime against this nation borders on treason.

HopeHeFails on May 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Also unexplained is why the UN Ambassador that would be acting as spokesdrone for the administration. Flacking for the administration on an embassy attack really isn’t part of her portfolio.

I honestly think she knowlingly lied her ass off about Benghazi with the promise that she would be the next Secretary of State.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

And through all this, people keep forgetting to mention that filmmaker Nakoula is still in jail.

Dusty on May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM

It used to be said that if Nixon had Clinton’s press, he would have finished his second term, and Spiro Agnew would have succeeded him. With Obama’s press, Senate, and ego, the chances of him being forced out of office are exactly zero.

TREGONSEE on May 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Actually, give credit to Greg Gutfeld of “Redeye” and “The Five”. He asked the question earlier and more often than most anyone else.

digitsiam on May 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM

I honestly think she knowlingly lied her ass off about Benghazi with the promise that she would be the next Secretary of State.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Yep, me too. She was getting a payoff for lying for Obama. When the lying failed to work, so did her anticipated SoS nomination.

NJ Red on May 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?

Valerie Jarret.

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM

That would be my guess.

ITguy on May 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM

It’s possible that the team could have gotten on the ground in time to repel the second attack

The admin’s position is preposterous….are attacks being RSVP’d with start and end times??? Ludicrous why they didn’t allow any help, regardless of distance, to proceed until verified the assault was indeed over…and what’s saying it couldn’t resume for a 3rd round?…IMPEACH.

hillsoftx on May 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Valerie Jarret

That right there is the REAL Chicago thug. She makes the rest of them look like pikers.

NJ Red on May 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM

A witchhunt without witches. Imagine that !
Or maybe there are two of ‘em.

But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — strongly objected to this draft. The CIA made some changes but apparently it was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”

WTF. Why is a State Dept. Spokesperson telling the CIA what to write ?

OTH, she clearly points to Clinton’s involvement.

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Yeah, all of this and…who ordered the stand down?

The cover-up began as soon as the first shots were fired. That would seem to make it part of a plan.

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM

The REB’s brain Valerie Jarrett did it, and forget about getting her to testify. That’s never going to happen with the REB in the White House.

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Well now.
We can toss in Jarret for a nice “three witches stew”

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Wait, this can’t be…we were told after the 2nd presidential debate that Obama was upfront about it being terror. You don’t mean the media ran with admin talking points in an effort to defend Dear Leader and lied to us, do you?

changer1701 on May 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM

It used to be said that if Nixon had Clinton’s press, he would have finished his second term, and Spiro Agnew would have succeeded him. With Obama’s press, Senate, and ego, the chances of him being forced out of office are exactly zero.

TREGONSEE on May 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Oh, I don’t know about that. Agnew left office for corruption during his time in MD before he became VP. But yes, the rat-eared coward isn’t going anywhere.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 10:41 AM

And to preserve the Administration’s “evil movie” narrative – an amateur filmmaker still rots in a prison cell today.

Hill60 on May 7, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Axelrod & Plouffe? Who else?

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Instead, State under Clinton reduced the security at this outpost while our allies fled the city, even while nearby terrorist attacks increased.

That’s the real scandal. Why reduce security and rely on a hostile Islamic militia when every other foreigner is leaving the city and warning you.

Whether or not we could have the cavalry ride to the rescue is debatable. But reducing your security in an increasingly insecure area is not. Deliberate.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Ramirez missed the obvious………….”I’m not a lying liar”.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?

Valerie Jarret.

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM

That would be my guess.

ITguy on May 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM

I wouldn’t forget about Axelrod.

DDay on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Wait, this can’t be…we were told after the 2nd presidential debate that Obama was upfront about it being terror. You don’t mean the media ran with admin talking points in an effort to defend Dear Leader and lied to us, do you?

changer1701 on May 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The fat pig moderating the second debate made that claim as she was tag-teaming the debate against Romney. It wasn’t true. And the pig “conveniently” even had the transcript to brandish before the cameras in her pudgy rib-stained fingers.

But the rat-eared coward was still saying it was about a video weeks later. Just as he has never called the Boston Marathon bombing an act of terrorism.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

If this gets very hot it will be interesting as operatives in the Democrat Party take sides – Clintonistas vs. Obamanots.

You will know the war is on when Carville starts making the circut pointing fingers.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I am sure that those who are guilty of the cover up; Obama, H Clinton, Susan Rice, etc. will take full responsibility for their actions provided there are no consequences to doing so.

Dasher on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I agree this is horrible and much worse than Watergate. But my question is – what laws were broken? Did anyone lie under oath? Just lying to the American people is not even remarkable in the most transparent administration ever.

sleepyhead on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Who cares? Nothing will come of this dog and pony show. The MSM won’t allow it.

RedNewEnglander on May 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

exactly. The only thing you can take from all of this is what clinton said ” What difference does it make?”. This will come and go and their will be no difference after its all said and done. The complicit and corrupt media will make sure of it. The evening news will have a segment about the dying seals and everyone will think its sunny outside.

phatfawzi on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Valerie Jarrett… pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain…

Boudica on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Nothing will happen. It will get buried under the girls in Ohio who were rescued (a good thing, but it will become a total circus)… and the Jodie Arias verdict will be coming in… And Honey Boo Boo’s mom and dad got married… And in the end it will all be Bush’s fault anyway.

Boudica on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

As much as I like the idea of Marine 1 whisking him away, I shutter at the thought of Uncle Joe being in charge.

yongoro on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

This is impeachable, deplorable, and dereliction of duty at all levels. The big picture to me is the total disregard displayed for the Constitution and the American people. Our ancestors fought and died for freedom of speech and this bunch immediately began their attack on an
American movie with dire warnings that Allah can’t be mocked by Americans!! As usual Obama and his Communist Muslim friends have to be protected and America blamed!!The behavior is always the same; Ft Hood, Benghazi, Boston, Underwear guy, shoe bomber,etc. Obama’s default position is always to blame America, Republicans, Christians. the courts, business,…in other words The American Way of life! He is truly the enemy of this country and a disgrace as Commander-in-Chief! I am hopeful that this fraud will be revealed and Shillary jailed!!

Marco on May 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Resolution Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Fawning acolyte troll yawns in 5…..4……3…….

itsspideyman on May 7, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Valerie Jarrett… pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain…

The LSM complies and agrees completely with that recommendation.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I can’t figure out the face on that cartoon. Ears, okay, but the rest is beyond me.

PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Nothing will happen. It will get buried under the girls in Ohio who were rescued (a good thing, but it will become a total circus)… and the Jodie Arias verdict will be coming in… And Honey Boo Boo’s mom and dad got married… And in the end it will all be Bush’s fault anyway.

Boudica on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

And strangely, the best sniper in the world is no longer alive.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I agree this is horrible and much worse than Watergate. But my question is – what laws were broken? Did anyone lie under oath? Just lying to the American people is not even remarkable in the most transparent administration ever.

sleepyhead on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Well if some idiot (illegal alien) college kid can get charged with “obstructing justice” for removing a laptop, I think an enterprising prosecutor should be able to come up with some “accessory” or “conspiracy” charges for Teh Won and Shillary.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

who crafted the four-Pinocchio lie, and to what purpose

Um, I am going to go out of a very far, very thin limb and proffer:

TO ENSURE THAT BENGHAZI DID NOT DERAIL BARACK OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION.

Of course, only tinfoil-hatters would say such a thing because, as nobrain and Bray-am(ing at the Moon) have repeatedly said:

bengazi is a political witchhunt by a congressman trying to make a name for himself

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM

People need to grow up and stop assuming that there’s always a cover up or government incompetence involved.

bayam on May 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I want categorical, sustained reminders to the American people from our side that Obama and Clinton danced on the graves of 4 brave Americans when they peddled the shopworn lie of an anti-Islamic video was to blame – right next to the flag-draped caskets.

Perhaps they should have kicked the caskets for good measure.

These are hateful, treasonous people.

matthew8787 on May 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Xcellent cartoon by Ramirez!

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism. …

But Obama told us that Obama made this point the day after the attack–and Candy Crowley backed him up.

/

BuckeyeSam on May 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I often wonder why this Administration has such a hard time grasping the realities of the world ahead of time, before things go bad. I know most liberals rely on lots of denial, seeing the world as they are convinced it should be instead of as it is, then trying to make the world conform to the demented ideal.

But these people running the country seem locked into their fantasies so tight they can almost be called ‘ultimate liberals’. What did they think would happen when we cut our security and our allies wisely cut and run? Did State think it would be really, really warm and fuzzy to show we ‘trust’ those who hate us, somehow believing we can win them as friends if we’re all ‘non-threatening’ and super-duper friendly? Maybe that’s why Obama went to bed: He likely thought, “It’ll blow over; they won’t get too violent.”

I think the talking points got scrambled in a mad dash to recover from a serious case of culture shock. The Administration didn’t see Benghazi coming (though she should have), and then didn’t know what to do with it; all their notions got blown out of the water in a few hours. Instead of owning up right away, their over-inflated egos made them think they could wiggle out of it.

I hope the sheer blindness, ineptitude, and full-blown liberalism of these people destroy their careers, and they take down as many more liberals, politicians, and bureaucrats as possible.

Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

This is impeachable, deplorable, and dereliction of duty at all levels. The big picture to me is the total disregard displayed for the Constitution and the American people

Pretty easy to disregard the Constitution when a majority of American people are kept ignorant of what that document really contains. Decades of leftist indoctrination in schools, of which the Constitution is either misinterpreted deliberately or through the ignorance of those teaching or not taught at all to our own citizens as well as the of waves of immigrants already accustomed to socialism and corruption in government to see to that.

The Left hate the constraints imposed upon government by the U.S. Constitution.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

I agree this is horrible and much worse than Watergate. But my question is – what laws were broken? Did anyone lie under oath? Just lying to the American people is not even remarkable in the most transparent administration ever.

sleepyhead on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Well we can start with Abuse of power through intimidation of witnesses…and throw in Obstruction of Justice and Impeding an Official Investigation.

The whistleblowers state they were threatened with reprisals etc.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

As much as I like the idea of Marine 1 whisking him away, I shutter at the thought of Uncle Joe being in charge.

yongoro on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Who says Joe has to be told?

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I’m looking forward to them defending their stance.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Incompetence has been the hallmark of this administration since Day One.

GarandFan on May 7, 2013 at 11:12 AM

The kenyan is a control freak (or his puppetmaster soros and jarret).

No way he did no do this or sign off on it.

However, expect some low level bureacrat to take the fall.

Expect the media to cover for 1/2 day then move on to important things like kardasian’s dog being ill.

acyl72 on May 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM

What do his economic theories have to do with this?

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

The country would be better off if we all knew what Jarret knows. It should be water board or Spock, the woman is total marxist evil.

tim c on May 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Well we can start with Abuse of power through intimidation of witnesses…and throw in Obstruction of Justice and Impeding an Official Investigation.

The whistleblowers state they were threatened with reprisals etc.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Thank you. That sounds like a good start.

sleepyhead on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Tuesday, about 6 AM, before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern): BLAMES VIDEO

Tuesday, about 6:30 PM, in Twitter message, U.S. Embassy stands by statement

Tuesday, 10:08 PM: Clinton Confirms Death of One American in Libya (BLAMES VIDEO)

Tuesday, 10:10 PM: Politico reports Obama Administration disavows Embassy Statement

Tuesday, 10:24 PM: Romney criticizes Administration’s response

Wednesday, 7:22 AM: President Confirms Death of the Ambassador and Three Others

Wednesday, 10:17 AM, ROMNEY’S FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE (for which he was roundly criticised):

“Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world. This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

FOUR DIPLOMATS LOST THEIR LIVES.

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional RIGHTS OF SPEECH and assembly and religion.

I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. THE WHITE HOUSE FINALLY DISTANCED ITSELF LAST NIGHT FROM THE STATEMENT, saying it wasn’t ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.’

- Statement of Mitt Romney, 12 September 2012

That same day, President Obama filmed an interview with 60 Minutes to be aired on the following Sunday in which he said:

‘There’s a broader lesson to be learned here. And I — you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that. That, you know, it’s important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make ‘em…’

- President Barack Obama, 60 Minutes (first paragraph), 12 September 2012

Knowing that Mitt Romney was receiving security briefings, as do all Presidential nominees of the two, major parties during the General Election, it is quite apparent that Romney was speaking the truth and Obama not so much…

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

As much as I like the idea of Marine 1 whisking him away, I shutter at the thought of Uncle Joe being in charge.

yongoro on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I’m okay with Joke Biden as president. He’s no smarter than the REB, but without the malice and hatred of America.

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Hearings are not enough, there has to be consequences to Obama and Hillary. Too bad Petreous was taken out of the picture with his scandal because I’m sure he knows lots, but his credibility is gone.

lea on May 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

farsighted on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Jennifer Griffin @JenGriffinFNC 15h
Question: why does the official DoD timeline re: military assets avail to help in Benghazi differ from classified ARB? Hope Congress asks.

Griffin has asked a good question here. When does this ARB become available to the public in its entirety?

Rovin on May 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Well we can start with Abuse of power through intimidation of witnesses…and throw in Obstruction of Justice and Impeding an Official Investigation.

The whistleblowers state they were threatened with reprisals etc.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Thank you. That sounds like a good start.

sleepyhead on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Judicial Watch
Patterico
Instapundit
Legal Insurrection

All great blogs that often cover legal issues thoughtfully.

I’m following Dershowitz too for the devil’s advocate argument as well….He’s a liberal of the old school but he’s smart and gives insight as to tactical difficulties/complexities of the arguments.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

. . . helped focus the journalitic narrative . . .”

bwahahahahahaha.

Stop, Glenn, stop. Yer killin’ me . . .

dissent555 on May 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

As much as I like the idea of Marine 1 whisking him away, I shutter at the thought of Uncle Joe being in charge.

yongoro on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I’m okay with Joke Biden as president. He’s no smarter than the REB, but without the malice and hatred of America.

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Biden could be fairly easy to manage after an Impeachment of Obama…But he would likely pardon Obama.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM

If Slo-Joe does become POTUS does that mean we get San Fran Nan as VP. Yikes!!!!!!!!

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Who has the authority to order a stand down order. I know it’s a general but doesn’t the general have to talk to the President?

Conservative4ev on May 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

If Slo-Joe does become POTUS does that mean we get San Fran Nan as VP. Yikes!!!!!!!!

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Nah…Biden would have to hire a crew of food tasters & he knows it.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

This week, we will see whether the Leader of the Free World will throw his Former Secretary of State under his now world-famous bus, as he apparently did those 4 brave Americans on that horrible night of September 11, 2012.

It will not surprise anyone if he does.

Harry S. Truman had a plaque on his desk which read,

The Buck Stops Here.

President Barack Hussein Obama has one on his desk, which reads,

It’s Not My Fault.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Who has the authority to order a stand down order. I know it’s a general but doesn’t the general have to talk to the President?

Conservative4ev on May 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Secretary of Defense who answers to the President.

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

jsunrise on May 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM

I see what you did there. Not a typo?

manyears on May 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

This is all a bunch of bull$hit.

Candy Crowley told me.

BacaDog on May 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM

If Slo-Joe does become POTUS does that mean we get San Fran Nan as VP. Yikes!!!!!!!!

What a fine pair they’d make though. The world would take notice and tremble.

/s

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM

If Slo-Joe does become POTUS does that mean we get San Fran Nan as VP. Yikes!!!!!!!!

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

No, of course not, and not Boehner either. Joe picks a VP and sends him/her to the Senate for confirmation. He could pick Hillary though.

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Tell me that cartoon head of the anointed one does not look like a penis about to enter a hairy vagina?

JLPicard on May 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

More importantly: who pushed the tape?

AllahsNippleHair on May 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Via twitchy
WH COS passing out don’t report on Benghazi donuts

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Ramirez: Another Watergate?

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Shillery “What difference, at this point does it make” Clinton’s future ambitions are burning over an open flame starting tomorrow on Capitol Hill. Let it be so.

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

It’s pretty clear to me that they weren’t living in lala land, but were actively arming the rebels in Lybia and beyond. The fantasy was the WH thinking they had bought the love of terrorists.

txhsmom on May 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I agree this is horrible and much worse than Watergate. But my question is – what laws were broken? Did anyone lie under oath? Just lying to the American people is not even remarkable in the most transparent administration ever.

sleepyhead on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Well, there ARE those 4 dead Americans…

And someone, somewhere in all the blizzard of paperwork got a *Official* notice to ‘stand down’.

An American citizen, regardless of his character or lack thereof was sent to jail over it….OTOH he wasn’t put on any official “Drone” list so there’s a plus.

Now, not sure what the chattering skulls at MSNBC or the other in the Media Knee-pad Brigade would want to name it, but so far, we have False testimony to Congress, Obstruction of Justice, and Lying Under Oath.

Nixon was forced from office for less (no deaths)…’Scooter’ Libby went to jail for WAY less (no deaths)…

I don’t expect, short of a videotape confession (maybe not even then) that Obama will take a hit on this: but dammit, the former SoS should. There is no reason she should get a pass over this.

But, in all likelihood, she will.

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

When both Obama and H.R. Clinton made a point of making it widely know that they were ‘in bed’ the night of the Benghazi attack I wondered why they would be so eager to point out that they were, essentially, absent without leave and derelict in their sworn duties. Surely, this was a political mistake, I thought.

Obama, in his capacity and role as Commander-In-Chief should certainly have been wide awake and working during an attack against our consulate, an attack which constituted an act of war against the sovereign soil of this nation.

H.R. Clinton, in her capacity as Secretary of State, having been responsible for both the presence of those State Department employees at Benghazi, and the lack of adequate security and observation of established protocols, not to mention well acquainted with Ambassador Stevens personally, should certainly have been wide awake and working to get those individuals under her dominion out of danger and home safely.

Yet, both Obama and H.R. Clinton went out of their way to make it clear that they were not wide awake and on the job while the Benghazi attack and the resultant deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, was occurring.

I had thought that this was a mistake, as it was an open admission that neither Obama nor H.R. Clinton had fulfilled their sworn duty, and both had demonstrated, at the very least, a callous disregard for the lives and well being of Americans whom they, together, had put in harms way.

Now, however, the reasoning behind their shameful and startling admissions becomes clear. This is an effort to afford themselves Plausible Deniablility. They will simply claim they knew nothing of events as they unfolded because they were in bed asleep and claim that no one notified them that Americans were dying under their command.

Plausible Deniability is a term the world became all too familiar with in the Nixon era relating to the Watergate coverup and scandal. However, there is an overrideing distinction between the plausible deniability pursued by the Nixon co-conspirators and the plausible deniability being sought by Obama and H.R. Clinton. No one died as a result of Nixon’s coverup of wiretapping the competition at the Watergate Hotel. Nixon didn’t order Americans into harms way, undermine the security to which they were entitled, and then turn his back in a blatant act of desertion as they were slaughtered by a group of people affiliated with and acting with at least three of the four KNOWN al quaeda operatives in the same nation in which he’d just armed rebels to overthrow the government of that nation.

Ultimately, Nixon resigned over his attempt to provide cover for those involved in wiretapping the competition at the Watergate Hotel. You can likely safely bet your life that H.R. Clinton and Barack H. Obama will not resign over the death’s of four Americans put into harms way by their will, lost to an act of blatant desertion, and deliberately lying about the cause of that attack which cost those lives, all to save themselves embarrassment before a national election.

thatsafactjack on May 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

The point of the cover-up wasn’t just to preserve the argument that Barack Obama had fatally weakened al-Qaeda, which few really believed anyway. It was to preserve the foreign-policy expertise argument in the 2012 presidential election, and to keep American voters from seeing the true scope of the disaster of Obama’s intervention in Libya. And that matters even more now, with the same administration considering another 30,00o-foot intervention that would end up once again benefiting al-Qaeda affiliates on the ground.

All true.

But tough to pack into a sound bite for low info “what me worry?” voters.

farsighted on May 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Instead, State under Clinton reduced the security at this outpost while our allies fled the city, even while nearby terrorist attacks increased.

That’s the real scandal. Why reduce security and rely on a hostile Islamic militia when every other foreigner is leaving the city and warning you.

Whether or not we could have the cavalry ride to the rescue is debatable. But reducing your security in an increasingly insecure area is not. Deliberate.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Because Hillary–or was it Barak?–ran her department with a belief that she had “smart power”. It makes America immune to bad guys.

The admin’s position is preposterous….are attacks being RSVP’d with start and end times??? Ludicrous why they didn’t allow any help, regardless of distance, to proceed until verified the assault was indeed over…and what’s saying it couldn’t resume for a 3rd round?…IMPEACH.

hillsoftx on May 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM

You don’t understand the genius of the Choom-headed One. This entire Administration is all about “What difference does it make?” even while they try to steal your liberty in an effort to “Make a difference!”

It wasn’t his fault. Because the attackers didn’t give Baraky enough time to “sleep on” his decision, he was incapable of making one.

America’s Rapid Response capability {and training} are wasted when such a slow-footed non-decision-maker is clogging up the Command structure.

Hey, Baraky! It sure is easy to criticize the quick decisions of a trained fighter pilot named Bush when you are nothing more than a highly-skilled couch potato named Obama, huh?

My favorite nickname for him, “Jackass-in-Chief” is too polite. The people who serve their country in harm’s way must know their country has their back–and is worth serving. This clown makes us all wonder.

rwenger43 on May 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Shillery “What difference, at this point does it make” Clinton’s future ambitions are burning over an open flame starting tomorrow on Capitol Hill. Let it be so.

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

They need to play the “What difference” clip over and over again. It’s offensive enough as a comment but combined with that Clintonian mix of lecturing, moral outrage, anger that anyone dare question, and schreeching is like nails on a chalkboard.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM

But tough to pack into a sound bite for low info “what me worry?” voters.

farsighted on May 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I’m thinking a re-creation of the events using sock puppets.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Hard to take anyone seriously when they don’t understand punctuation.

itsspideyman on May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Obama will throw Hillary under the bus.

He needs Deval, or such, as a front man.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Your glee is your dope.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:22 PM

It was that “Innocence of Muslims” video guy who rewrote the talking points.

That’s why he’s in jail, right?

profitsbeard on May 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Benghazi is already off of all the TV stations, incl. Faux.

The Cleveland kidnappint and sexual abuse, by 3 burly Asian guys, and the Syrian aid, based on yesterday’s Oaf in Chief golf outing with Corker/Chambliss have taken over the news.

Hillary will still be thrown under the bus by Obama.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

kidnapping

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Hard to take anyone seriously when they don’t understand punctuation.

itsspideyman on May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM

hard to take criticism seriously from someone who doesn’t know the difference between punctuation and capitalization.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Yet, both Obama and H.R. Clinton went out of their way to make it clear that they were not wide awake and on the job while the Benghazi attack and the resultant deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, was occurring.

thatsafactjack on May 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

In one of the Horatio Hornblower stories, the Acting Captain of a British ship was captured in his bunk while his ship was being taken by escaped prisoners.

His ship had to be re-captured by underlings operating outside of the command structure at great loss of life.

His enemies and peers all mocked the Acting Captain openly after the fact. His men were embarrassed for him and tried not to hate him, because once he was freed they still had to serve under him until he could be formally relieved of command.

Nevertheless, he went to his grave feeling justified in having gone to bed, because if his underlings had done their duties correctly, “nothing would have happened.”

The burden of responsibility requires acknowledgement of it, not the ability to blame subordinates. Barak is lazy. And other people pay the price for his sloth.

rwenger43 on May 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Savages

No I’m not talking about the Oliver Stone anti-Latino movie on cable this week.

I want a vote on what would be just if the facts are as they appear:

1) President Obama admits that a Muslim leader called him with the worry that a major problem would develop due to the movie knocking Islam and he was so scared that he didn’t even want to risk one more rifle raised that night by an American in a ME nation. So he just went numb and went to rest to go to Las Vegas. He is so sorry and it will not happen again. Please remember that he got Bin Laden!

2) The stonewall continues and several top aides admit the mess on the information chain and will “end” their careers as super grades to become lobbyists for a while and try to keep up the payments on the two multi-million dollar they bought while gov’t employees homes in God know what way.

3) Jesus Christ himself (or a reactionary leader) brings a force which exactly replicates the Benghazi siege with the White house as a target and people trapped inside. The Supreme Court orders the Secret Service and Marine guards to stand down for an unclear reason while the wild savages totally destroy the place and the President suffers exactly the same fate as the Ambassador. What is left of him is taken to hospital the next day and dropped off. The fires even resemble the tragedy and classified stuff flies everywhere like trash. Apparently Jesus didn’t take all the Christian bashing as well as we thought He would.

4) The truth proves as rare and slick as a unicorn covered in frozen nitrogen and we have endless hearings which completely stop the law making process until 2016. Life goes on and nobody else suffers horribly and we act like good Christians about the whole thing.

IlikedAUH2O on May 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

JLPicard on May 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I would argue it’s the nether end of his “down low” brother!

wolfplus3 on May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Bagdad Bob wrote them!

kregg on May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3