ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference; Update: Video added

posted at 8:01 am on May 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Following on the heels of blockbuster testimony from three whistleblowers regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack, ABC’s Jonathan Karl did some digging into the evolution of the talking points used afterward to paint the attack as a spontaneous demonstration gone wild.  The White House claims that the talking points reflected the CIA’s assessment of the situation, but Karl reports that ABC has found twelve revisions made by the Obama administration from the CIA original, culminating in the whitewashed version Susan Rice parroted on September 16th:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard first came up with the e-mails, which Karl links in his piece.  Hayes explained the provenance of the e-mails, and what they mean for the White House explanation:

The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment  from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

The Wall Street Journal argues that these revelations should prompt John Boehner to form a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the White House cover-up:

Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia has written House Speaker John Boehner, requesting the creation of a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi terror debacle. It is an excellent idea. A Select Committee is the only means available now for the U.S. political system to extricate itself from the labyrinth called Benghazi. …

There are strong reasons for doing so, starting with the murdered U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Across this country’s history, the murder of an American ambassador, the nation’s representative, has been taken as not merely a tragedy but an attack on U.S. interests that demands an official accounting to the American people.

Nothing about Benghazi, including the Accountability Review Board report, has reflected that U.S. tradition. It has instead represented the more recent impulse in our politics to sweep uncomfortable events out of the news, move forward in the Twitter news cycle, or grind it down into no more than partisan pettiness.

Has partisanship been in play here? Yes, as always in Washington. But the terrorist assault on a U.S. mission abroad deserves not to be quashed by partisanship.

It may be that a bipartisan Select Committee would validate the Obama Administration’s version of events. So be it. And if so, the Administration officials on duty then should not fear it. But after the Hicks testimony, the idea that the American political system should move on from the murder of a U.S. ambassador in a distant land doesn’t sit right.

Perhaps the media would be more inclined to cover that probe than they’ve been to cover the scandal up to now.  Let’s end on a lighter note, as Andrew Klavan makes a guest appearance in Steven Crowder’s weekly video to explain to those whom the media have poorly served just what’s going on here:

Addendum: Per Jim Geraghty, another big takeaway here will be that Jay Carney either knowingly lied or was deceived into making that statement.  If it’s the latter, Carney’s resignation should follow relatively quickly.  If it doesn’t, then we can at least suspect that it’s the former.

Update: Karl presented the story on GMA this morning:

That’s going to leave a mark.


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 4

They had him wait until after the election to resign.

You can bet the Chicago Gang was talking to Patraeus about his “problem” well before that.

[farsighted on May 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM]

Do you think so? I think talking to him beforehand would have been a serious mistake.

Dusty on May 10, 2013 at 11:03 AM

o “Let’s be clear: these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region,” said Carney. “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”…(Despite 20 Embassies being attacked on the anniversary of 9/11 on 9/11/12:) “The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that many Muslims find offensive. It is not a response to 9/11″…“The cause of the unrest was a video. And that continues today, as you know, as we anticipated. And it may continue for some time.”
– White House spokesman Jay Carney

o “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before Congress

o 9/11/12: “It’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”
– President Obama

(o 9/16/12: “The attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.”
– Libya President Mohamed Magariaf on CBS)

o 9/18/12: “Here’s what happened: Extremists and terrorists used this (the video Obama was just asked about)as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”
– President Obama

o 9/18/12: “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere,”
– President Obama

o 9/24/12 – When asked on ‘The View’ if the Benghazi attack was over a video: “We’re still doing an investigation.”
– President Obama

o 9/25/12 – Obama before the U.N.: He condemns the YouTube Video, calling it “crude and disgusting.”
– President Obama

o 10/10/12: “Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community — not opinions — assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.”
– White House Spokesman Jay Carney

o 10/10/12: ““We are giving out the best information we have at the time.”
– Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy

o 10/15/12: “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

o 10/24/12: “Within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact — that’s why there’s an investigation underway.”
– White House spokesman Jay Carney

EVERY TIME YOU WATCH HILLARY CLINTON’S INFAMOUS “WHAT DOES IT MATTER NOW” VIDEO CLIP …EVERY TIME YOU WATCH / HEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA TALK ABOUT BENGHAZI FROM HERE ON OUT, REMEMBER EVERY TIME THEY MADE ONE OF THESE COMMENTS – EVEN A MONTH AFTER THE ATTACK ON 9/11/12 – THEY ALREADY KNEW BENGHAZI WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY VIDEO, & THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN A FULL-FLEDGED COVER UP IN ORDER TO PROTECT OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION CHANCES.

Then remember there once was a time in this country when the level of our morals, ethics, honor, and sense of what was right and wrong was high enough where we as a nation did not tolerate such ‘criminal’ acts from our President or any other government official. President Richard Nixon was so worried about HIS re-election that he aided in the hiding of several minutes of audio-tape and the cover-up of the ‘Watergate Event’…and for THAT he was removed from office. No one knows this better than Hillary Clinton, who helped in that investigation and the removal of Nixon from office. Now the shoe is on the other foot – Clinton is in Nixon’s shoes…but this time she says the actions are not an ‘Impeachable’ offense. 4 Americans are dead…”What does it matter?”

Only America can answer that now. What does the needless death of 4 Americans at the hands of terrorists and the attack’s cover-up to preserve 1 man’s re-election chances & a party’s prestige matter to YOU?

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Sorta makes Watergate truly look like a third-rate burglary, doesn’t it?

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Well done.

Chris of Rights on May 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM

The Jonathan Karl clip is a good demonstration of what is wrong with the media today.

Here, Mr. Karl has a scoop…some extremely important (and interesting)news about the editing of the talking points. He shows two samples of the scrubbed talking points at which point the anchor chirps in with a question.

There are some logical questions the anchor could have posed, for the benefit of the audience (or out of simple curiosity), would be something like “So, what happened?” or “Are there any other examples of this?” or “How did this happen?”…something like that.

Instead his immediate question is about how this will affect the State Department and/or Mrs. Clinton.

They do everything possible to prevent the dissemination of information, to allow the audience to do its own evaluation.

But credit to Mr Karl for doing some journalism on this.

Blaise on May 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM

…“The cause of the unrest was a video. And that continues today, as you know, as we anticipated.”
– Carney

?? So the Obama administration anticipated a ‘demonstration’ regardig a little/un-known video but the thought of violence on the anniversary of 9/11 never occurred to them??

“What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before Congress

?? “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE…ITS OUR JOB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WENT WRONG…” Um…in order to figure out what went wrong isn’t it a necessity to figure out exactly WHO perpetrated the attack, WHY they perpetrated the attack, did they give any warning, & why wasn’t the State Department / the Obama dministration prepared, especially on the ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11??

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM

They don’t call it lying, they call it being a team player.

Blake on May 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM

There is no evidence of wrong doing
-lib talking head

Instead of emails they are focusing on Cheney and gop attacking Hillary

Talking points scrubbed
Meh

Msdnc

Wow

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Funny, every time the question “How was Watergate worse than this?” is brought up, the trolls do not respond.

BeachBum on May 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I don’t think I’m going to make a batch of kettle corn for this, at least not today. And when I do next week or next month, it will be just to enjoy while watching how spineless the Republicans will be in dealing with this when the whole cache of smoking guns are found.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM

For some reason journalist seem to think this is all about Obama and Clinton. When in fact it is about four dead Americans and the truth. When Benghazi is approached from this aspect of the story, then all will be known.

DDay on May 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM

CORRECTION: “…& why wasn’t the State Department / the Obama Administration WAS SO UN-prepared, especially on the ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11??”

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Yepper dog soldier must be waiting for Valerie’s email

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Yep, it was nice knowing him, wasn’t it.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

We know one thing for certain. The rat-eared coward didn’t do anything to try and help those under attack. If he had we would probably have had a photo of him in his cute little Presidential sweat suit looking that the video stream from the drones flying overhead in Benghazi. And he and his people would have made sure he got the “credit” for it. The silence says all that needs to be said.

The morning after the attack, Hillary Clinton was out there lying her ass off with stories of Libyans storming the burning building and rushing Christopher Stevens off to a hospital, and mournful that he didn’t make it. Not one of it is the truth.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Oldroy, this is NOT an attack on you….that said, instead of sitting back and making or NOT making a batch of kettle corn, I urge you and every American who gives a d@mn about this…those who it DOES matter to…to get up, pick up the phone, call their representatives, & GIVE THEM some courage by teling them that you DO support following this up, that you DO WANT them to continue to follow this up, and that you have their back on this one. Tell them to ignore the political & media shi’ite storm the Liberals – especially the ‘Elect Hillary ’16′ crowd – is definitely going to throw at them in an attempt to make them believe the majority of Americans are against them on this to back them down!

This isn’t just ‘political theater’, this is a fight for our nation, a fight for those morals, ethics, honor, and that sense of right and wrong I spoke of…and it isn’t just up to the politicians we sent to Washington to battle alone. Get in the fight – it only takes a quick phone call, a text, an e-mail to your rep, or a letter to the local paper. Thanks!

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Michael steele finally says it…..if this occurred under a gop admin the lsm would be all over this….Cummings silence

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Well silence is a part of life…

Axeman on May 10, 2013 at 11:26 AM

IRS Admits to Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election, Apologizes

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM

They APOLOGIZED? Well h#ll, all is forgiven / forgotten, then!
:( Sheesh!

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Be nice to Carney…he gets it from his boss.

[Or, as the Russians say..."Рыба портится от головки." A fish starts rotting from the head. ]

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM

ONE LAST CORRECTION: “Only America can answer that now. What does the needless death of 4 Americans at the hands of terrorists and the attack’s cover-up to preserve 1 man’s re-election chances … and the chance for Hillary Clinto to run for President in 2016… & a party’s prestige matter to YOU?”

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM

For some reason journalist seem to think this is all about Obama and Clinton. When in fact it is about four dead Americans and the truth. When Benghazi is approached from this aspect of the story, then all will be known.

DDay on May 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM

It’s not all about the rat-eared coward and pig-in-a-pantsuit. But, the order for the military to stand down had to come from high up in the administration like from the Commander-in-Chief.

The State Department opted to keep that consulate open despite the Brits and Red Cross pulling out because of the perceived threat to personnel.

With the anniversary of 9/11/01, the first since OBL was killed, and riots breaking out all over the Middle East we don’t have any military assets on ready standby to render assistance? We have an ambassador away from the Embassy in a facility that doesn’t even meet the facility standards issued by State? And just whose blood was smeared on that column at the consulate considering we’ve been led to believe that Stevens died of smoke inhalation where “brave Libyans” were protecting him from the spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video.

I agree with you that there is far more to the story than the rat-eared coward and pig-in-a-pantsuit but they are an integral part of the story and they have been stonewalling for months hoping that it would all go away after the election and enough news cycles.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Yepper dog soldier must be waiting for Valerie’s email

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Yep, it was nice knowing him, wasn’t it.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

heh! I’m still here. No email so far.

That NBS bit is spreading around the web. I checked around my usual haunts real quick and the number of references is growing fast along with the number of folks chiming in that Zero tossed the harridan under the bus…

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

ugh. I meant NBC.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Has there been any speculation that it was Biden’s people that leaked this story to ABC to torpedo Hillary?

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:33 AM

ugh. I meant NBC.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

NBS was more accurate.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM

All that scrubbing still didn’t get out that damned spot, now, did it, Lady Rodham Macbeth?

Christien on May 10, 2013 at 11:36 AM

What difference ,at this point, does it make?!?

BoxHead1 on May 10, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The Wall Street Journal argues that these revelations should prompt John Boehner to form a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the White House cover-up

except that bohner prefers the possibility of future golf and party invites from teh won.

Lost in Jersey on May 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM

There’s one person out there who can really blow this open, there’s that one guy or gal who knows a key piece; let’s just hope they have the courage to step forward even if it’s only to protect their own hide.

Bishop on May 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Exactly why you need a specially empanelled committee – so there’s someone who can offer genuine all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free cards to anyone who steps forward. Once that offer is on the table, there will probably be a stampede. Not saying it doesn’t take a lot of guts to step up in any case, but the guarantee of immunity will make it a bit easier.

bofh on May 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Do you think so? I think talking to him beforehand would have been a serious mistake.

Dusty on May 10, 2013 at 11:03 AM

There is no doubt in my mind they let him know they knew about his “problem” and used that information for leverage to get him to behave as they wished regarding Benghazi.

It’s the Chicago Way. It is how they operate. And everyone who has lived anywhere near Chicago for any length of time knows it, especially people born and raised there.

farsighted on May 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Well, my choices are to call Senator Martin Heinrich – freakishly leftist Dem. with an IQ of about 40, Senator Tom Udall – freakishly leftist Dem. with an IQ of about 200, or Rep. Michelle Grisham-Lujan – freakishly leftist Dem. with an IQ of about 2.

The fix is in. The coverup will be found out. It won’t matter one damn bit. The Republicans will fold and then sign anything put in front of them on immigration, gun control, gay marriage, and reform of health reform. The Republicans will do this to apologize for ever bringing this back up.

We are past the point of no return on debt to GDP, and we are just going to add more debt to help all of those undocumented immigrants take jobs and health care away from Democrat voting minorities. We are past the point of no return on informed voters. The GOP will not find a pair on this, and nothing will happen.

Post-American America. Best get yourself on Amazon and order a copy of a Spanish language learning course. Also, you might want to start studying up on Dem. talking points so you can blend in.

And this is my most optimistic assessment of what is to come.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Given the story that Petraeus objected to scrubbing the terrorist references in the talking points, it would be very interesting to see how the Petraeus/Broadwell story fit into the timeline of witness intimidation, document revisions, etc. Any bets on a cause/effect relationship between Petraeus’s position on Benghazi and what subsequently occurred to him?

FiveG on May 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Too good to check. But does anyone doubt that if Obama thought he needed to sacrifice Shrillary to save his own tired butt, he’d pull the trigger in a heartbeat.

Bill, however, will be grumpy.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Oh my, CBS and ABC now covering the story?

Nine months after the fact. Hmm, somebody must have been following the money and talking to Deepthroat. And to think that they got there so much faster than the Watergate boys. That must be technological progress for you. Or else, they could have just watched Fox News two days after the incident.

parke on May 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM

blink on May 10, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Just like Watergate or Bill Clinton’s perjury; the problem for the administration is not the event but the cover-up.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Monkeytoe on May 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Monkeytoe on May 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Well most constitutional crisis never reaches the level of impeachment. What usually happens is a bunch of senior politicians usually bring the hammer down on the President, or his surrogates to remind them that they are only one of three branches in this town. But this man is different. He has no real experience when it comes to dealing or negotiation. Because of that, he uses threats, bullying, and other “forms” to get his way. Those methods have very limited value in a place like D.C. As a O-8 I know it’s cheap an easy way to pin the political hack label on Flag officers. But very few get to make policy. All one can do is advise. Civilians make policy, we just carry it out. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to remind your boss, that he, or she is the boss, and the decision is theirs. If you can build a good working relationship, then they will accept your advice. While our political masters like to throw us out to the public from time to time. It is they who are making the decisions. We can only hope that they will listen to those who have the expertise in dealing with the various problems as they come up.

flackcatcher on May 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Any bets on a cause/effect relationship between Petraeus’s position on Benghazi and what subsequently occurred to him?

FiveG on May 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Any bets on a frog’s butt not being watertight?

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Hillary worked on a committee tied to the Watergate hearings back in the day. She was FIRED afterwords by the Judiciary chief of staff for lying and trying to “violate the constitution.” That chief of staff was a democrat and has nothing good to say about Killary and her lack of ethics.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Don’t forget, failing to issue a “go forward” order or failing to authorize assets to be employed isn’t the same as a “stand down” order. I think we need to stop asking this question.

blink on May 10, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Not until we get a legitimate answer. I didn’t make up that “stand down” rhetoric it came from somebody on the ground in Tripoli. It deserves an answer for that reason alone. And if the rat-eared coward failed to authorize assets that could have saved those lives, why didn’t he? Did he leave a do not disturb order when he went to bed (had to be alert for his Vegas gig)?

I want Dempsey under oath explaining just why the military did not act in the midst of an eight-hour attack.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Just like Watergate or Bill Clinton’s perjury; the problem for the administration is not the event but the cover-up.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM

But in contrast to Watergate, if this regime didn’t do everything in its power to save our proples’ lives, the Benghazi crime is more serious than the coverup. H/T: Byron York

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Video of Clinton leading the attack in Benghazi could surface, and the media would laud her for her bold leadership.

Christien on May 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Cripe I meant msdnc was waiting for Valerie’s email

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Powerline Blog pointed out that Nixon was never a part of the original crime. He knew nothing about the break-in prior to the event. He didn’t order it, didn’t have anything to do with it. He was only involved in the cover up.

In contrast, Killary and Bam Bam are responsible for the vulnerability of the consulate and thus, are at least partially responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans/dereliction of duty/the original crime. Which is why they’re covering it up.

Pretty big difference, no?

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Oh well, we had fun with it anyway.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Powerline Blog pointed out that Nixon was never a part of the original crime. He knew nothing about the break-in prior to the event. He didn’t order it, didn’t have anything to do with it. He was only involved in the cover up.

In contrast, Killary and Bam Bam are responsible for the vulnerability of the consulate and thus, are at least partially responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans/dereliction of duty/the original crime. Which is why they’re covering it up.

Pretty big difference, no?

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM

For posterity and perspective, I hope Woodward and Bernstein will write a book about Nixon titled “On Second Thought”. Subtitle: “We’re really really sorry.”

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Right, from the hearing we now know there were TWO stand-down orders, and we need to know who and why for both of them.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 11:58 AM

The ARB report itself, and its investigative process, needs to be investigated and questioned.

farsighted on May 10, 2013 at 9:45 AM

You should remember that the lady behind this was also instrumental in the WH ordering the RTC investigators to go to the people they were thinking of referring for prosecution and telling them that they were candidates–because it was illegal for those under investigation to ask whether or not they were candidates.

This was part of that whole “broke no rules” whitewash of the various Clinton skullduggeries. You’d almost think that the purpose of the law was that the person being referred wouldn’t be tipped off. But no, they “broke no rules”.

It wouldn’t be the first time her role in an investigation needed investigating.

Axeman on May 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Valerie Jarret and David Axlerod? Redundancy built in to the system.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Would be totally appropriate. But I don’t think ‘ol Woodward and Bernstein have it in them.

When you really consider their part in opening up Watergate, at least in how it’s come to be known, it’s not that compelling. And they’ve sailed on their own coattails for years because of it.

In fact, Watergate is actually a lot of hype when you consider Benghazi.

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM

El Rusho: Benghazi has escaped the MSM blackout. Now it’s out there.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Would be totally appropriate. But I don’t think ‘ol Woodward and Bernstein have it in them.

When you really consider their part in opening up Watergate, at least in how it’s come to be known, it’s not that compelling. And they’ve sailed on their own coattails for years because of it.

In fact, Watergate is actually a lot of hype when you consider Benghazi.

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM

But I thought they were Journalistic Gods. All this time I thought so highly of their skills…

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM

There’s one person out there who can really blow this open

,

How much do you need? I mean, diggin’ through a pile of poop – going all ‘CSI’ on it by doing a battery of tests just to confirm it is indeed a pile of poop – is UN-necessary.

The fact that STEVENS passed the word this was a terrorist attack as it began…the CIA informed the administration this was a terrorist attack within 12 hours of it beginning…the fact that this administration doctored & altered that CIA report 12 times…the fact that even OVER 1 month after this attack – as I outlined above – was indeed a terrorist attack and the Obama adminsitration (Obama, Hillary, Rice, Carney, etc…) continued to LIE about the cause…is enough to prove conspiracy, lies, betrayal, cover-up…. There is your ‘smoking gun’.

Nixon was proved to have known & aided in the cover-up — ‘You’re done – get out!’ WE HAVE THAT NOW ON OBAMA!

No more investigations, no more interviews are needed to justify taking action against all 4, but especially Obama & Hillary!

If you want to HELP the Liberals who are trying to convince the American people that MORE is needed to prove they did something then go ahead, but all that is needed is already there. Now if you want to continue to find out everyone involved &know everything there is to know, like WHO gave the stand down order then I am already on-board…BUT LET’S STOP THE BS THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVED, MORE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE OBAMA/HILLARY DID ANYTHING WRONG. WHAT I POSTED IS ENOUGH TO DO THAT.

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM

But I thought they were Journalistic Gods. All this time I thought so highly of their skills…

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Maybe JournOlistic Gods?? :-)

They are legends in their own minds.

It bothers me that Watergate and those guys are sacrosanct and it/they shouldn’t be.

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM

If this does in the end bring down the Obama administration, as John Bolton suggests, then the American media needs to be taken down also because they deliberately let this scandal fester and even went out of their way to defend Obama and attack Romney over it in order to reelect Obama.

If the media had performed their journalistic duties, who knows if Obama get’s reelected, but at least we’d know that this scandal was cleared up and the reelected President didn’t have it hanging over his head.

The media looked at this terrorist attack and decided that it would damage Obama’s reelection chances so they buried the story, and if Romney dared to mention it, they savaged him for it. And now the President has a major scandal that will damage and weaken him.

OxyCon on May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Anyone remember this? Good times…

Is President Obama ‘Skipping’ Intelligence Briefings?

Sep 14, 2012

…“This president is absolutely responsible and voracious consumer of the presidential daily briefing and of the information provided to him by his national security team.

“His record of evaluating and acting on intelligence, I think, speaks for itself,” (Carney) said. “I’ll leave it at that.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/is-president-obama-skipping-intelligence-briefings/

Fallon on May 10, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Heh.

Drudge linked to a Nat Journal story by Ron Fournier so that comments were stampeded with negative commentary about Clinton and Obama. The comments were summarily shut down.

Progs are so pathetic.

mountainaires on May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Hillary worked on a committee tied to the Watergate hearings back in the day. She was FIRED afterwords by the Judiciary chief of staff for lying and trying to “violate the constitution.” That chief of staff was a democrat and has nothing good to say about Killary and her lack of ethics.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Notice how you had to leave the country to find that information?

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

If the media had performed their journalistic duties, who knows if Obama get’s reelected, but at least we’d know that this scandal was cleared up and the reelected President didn’t have it hanging over his head.

OxyCon on May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM

If they had done their job in 2007, he never would have gotten the Democrat nomination, much less win for the first time.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:26 PM

What if the answer is…

blink on May 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Then we assess that position on its merits.

Hicks in his testimony noted two stand-down orders:

One of the biggest points of contention arose from testimony that two “stand-down” orders were given while the attacks were in progress. Hicks reports that a Defense Department attaché said that a fighter aircraft in Aviano airbase in Italy would not be able to be over Benghazi for two to three hours, while others seem to report that it would have taken longer. Mark Thompson also reported that he was prevented from sending out a support team designed to engage situations like the one present in Benghazi. He claims that the White House told him that it was not the right team to send in nor was it the right time.

The quote comes from policymic.com, but Breitbart.com and others have noted it also. You can check the transcript of Hicks’ testimony here. During his testimony, as best I recall, Hicks was specifically asked if he was detailing not one, but two stand-down orders, and he answered that, yes, he was.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 12:28 PM

If this does in the end bring down the Obama administration, as John Bolton suggests, then the American media needs to be taken down also because they deliberately let this scandal fester and even went out of their way to defend Obama and attack Romney over it in order to reelect Obama.

If the media had performed their journalistic duties, who knows if Obama get’s reelected, but at least we’d know that this scandal was cleared up and the reelected President didn’t have it hanging over his head.

The media looked at this terrorist attack and decided that it would damage Obama’s reelection chances so they buried the story, and if Romney dared to mention it, they savaged him for it. And now the President has a major scandal that will damage and weaken him.

OxyCon on May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM

This is one of the reasons that I’m so pessimistic that anything will happen. It’s not just the scandal. It’s the thrown election. Not only will we see there was a coverup in the administration, we’ll see that the media knew and willingly went along to save the election. That is why the Republicans won’t have the ‘nads to go all the way with this. They just won’t know what to do when the goods are found because of all of the myriad implications.

What exactly can you do to a media that intentionally threw an election to bring some sort of accountability, without it being political?

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM

What if the answer is:

“Because we were worried that the embassy in Tripoli could be attacked due to concerns that Benghazi could have been being used as a feint so the decision was made (rightly or wrongly) to maintain those assets at the embassy.”

Btw, what is the other stand-down order that you’re referring to?

blink on May 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM

I hope they say just that. If they do, they are well and truely f*cked.
1) Against all previous denials, they admit a “stand down” was given. Who gave it ?
2) They admit they had PRIOR knowledge of a security problem and did nothing to mitigate the risk.

In short, they would have to admit that ALL prior statements from the Administration where intentionally dishonest and misleading.

Jabberwock on May 10, 2013 at 12:32 PM

If they had done their job in 2007, he never would have gotten the Democrat nomination, much less win for the first time.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:26 PM

But without exception the media feel it is their job to protect the left’s interests. It’s in their DNA. They did do their job in 2007 – that was to get the first black president elected. I don’t thin we should have any confidence in the media reporting anything object. The only confidence I can have in the media at this point is that they will do everything in their power to protect, defend and promote the left.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Brilliant observation from a poster at another forum:

President Obama has struck a great blow for racial equality by proving that a half-black man can be equally as incompetent as any white man who ever held the office.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Notice how you had to leave the country to find that information?

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Crikey! Even the Daily Mail UK, which is pretty tabloidish, can leave out the spin. In fact, they probably gave the most updated detailed information right after the Boston Bombings.

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Heh.

Drudge linked to a Nat Journal story by Ron Fournier so that comments were stampeded with negative commentary about Clinton and Obama. The comments were summarily shut down.

Progs are so pathetic.

mountainaires on May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Ron Fournier may be the last semi-honest liberal reporter. He did some pathetic stuff during the campaign, but he has really held Obama’s feet to the fire since.

His take is important because all other political reporters read his stuff every day, and his opinions are influential. He has sort of given his permission for others to start telling the truth. I’m sure he has gotten severe pushback from the White House today, but as he wrote a few weeks ago he has already severed the relationship he had with the WH press office because they have been such d-bags to him. He isn’t answering their phone calls or emails anymore.

rockmom on May 10, 2013 at 12:41 PM

“This is a Huge Scandal…In this case the coverup is not worse than the crime…They are both bad…” – Rush Limbaugh

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Okay. Yeah. So. Bush lied about WMD. So. You know. There’s that. Hey, did you hear that gay-advocate punter from the Vikings was released?

BKeyser on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Okay. Yeah. So. Bush lied about WMD. So. You know. There’s that. Hey, did you hear that gay-advocate punter from the Vikings was released?

BKeyser on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Yeah – and we are going to take Al Quaida’s word on the Syrian Gov. use of WMD…

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Of course Carney lied. The lie is too big and too deep.

You’re talking e-mails back and forth (yes, this sounds like lawyers hammering out an “affidavit” — getting their client’s “statements of fact” just right before sticking it in front of the client to sign under oath). These revisions are being exchanged, openly, within the Executive Branch. We’re talking at least 12 versions as the talking points circulated (and probably more internally at each stop along the paper trail).

For Carney to have no knowledge regarding the background of his categorical, definitive statements is beyond the pale of credibility.

He has little stature or honor these days anyway. He could improve that situation greatly by coming clean and walking away.

Not likely. He doesn’t seem the type to do the right thing.

IndieDogg on May 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

It is true that it is GOP members of Congress who have been pushing for this investigation, but that is not the source of partisanship here. The real partisanship comes (1) from the Dems who lie, dissemble, cover up and in short do everything possible to protect Obama by withholding the truth of the matter from the American people, and (2) the MSM which proudly complies with these tactics.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Okay. Yeah. So. Bush lied about WMD. So. You know. There’s that…

BKeyser on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

And the fact that you folks can’t seem to get off that well-beaten (and discredited) horse proves how “important” you think it is. This is 2013 and it’s still your only “talking point” so, apparently, you think lying by the President is a BFD.

Agreed.

IndieDogg on May 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Oh, now the fake journalists decide they want to cover it. Sure would have been nice if you guys had done your job when you were supposed to.

rightmind on May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Drudge linked to a Nat Journal story by Ron Fournier so that comments were stampeded with negative commentary about Clinton and Obama. The comments were summarily shut down.

Progs are so pathetic.

mountainaires on May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Ron Fournier may be the last semi-honest liberal reporter. He did some pathetic stuff during the campaign, but he has really held Obama’s feet to the fire since.

His take is important because all other political reporters read his stuff every day, and his opinions are influential. He has sort of given his permission for others to start telling the truth. I’m sure he has gotten severe pushback from the White House today, but as he wrote a few weeks ago he has already severed the relationship he had with the WH press office because they have been such d-bags to him. He isn’t answering their phone calls or emails anymore.

rockmom on May 10, 2013 at 12:41 PM

One of our beloved bridge-dwellers here (either bayam or sesquipedalien) claimed with a straight face a couple of months back that Fournier wasn’t a liberal. Laughed so hard I started to choke on my haggis.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Okay. Yeah. So. Bush lied about WMD. So. You know. There’s that…

BKeyser on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

And the fact that you folks can’t seem to get off that well-beaten (and discredited) horse proves how “important” you think it is. This is 2013 and it’s still your only “talking point” so, apparently, you think lying by the President is a BFD.

Agreed.

IndieDogg on May 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Methinks BKeyser was being sarcastic with that statement.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Okay. Yeah. So. Bush lied about WMD. So. You know. There’s that…

BKeyser on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

And the fact that you folks can’t seem to get off that well-beaten (and discredited)

I am still amazed by ignorance, whether natural or chosen…

1. BUSH would not simply come out for no reason, himself, & say ‘Iraq has WMD’ without being provided some amount of evidence…

2. Libs conveniently forget about the following:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

3. There were reports that Hussein moved his WMD into Syria just before the U.S. went in (some reports from Iraqis)..and now we are we are worried about Syria’s massive stockpile of Chemical weapons….(and where did they get all that from?)

Good grief….

easyt65 on May 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM

If this does in the end bring down the Obama administration, as John Bolton suggests, then the American media needs to be taken down also because they deliberately let this scandal fester and even went out of their way to defend Obama and attack Romney over it in order to reelect Obama.

OxyCon on May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I doubt it will bring down the admin.

But it could/should seriously erode Comrade O’s approval rating, his ability to advance his agenda, and his influence in DC.

And it could/should also seriously damage Hillary’s reputation and credibility.

It is an issue of trust. Dear Leader portrays himself as honest, trustworthy, and competent. We know better. But many independents still do not.

Many Americans do not care. They are called Democrats. But there may still be enough independents that do not like being lied to, misled, deliberately deceived, and manipulated with faleshoods right before an election. They also do not like seeing people like Hicks, underlings in the government, intimidated, threatened, and demoted for trying to tell them the truth.

Depending on how Dems up for reelection deal with this it could also influence some races in 2014.

farsighted on May 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM

As a O-8 I know it’s cheap an easy way to pin the political hack label on Flag officers. But very few get to make policy.

flackcatcher on May 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I wasn’t saying that a general makes policy, I was commenting on the fact that Patreaus did not care enough about the slain men to stand up for what’s right. The reason for that was b/c he cared more about his job than doing what is right. I’m not blaming him for what happened, I’m blaming him for being a coward and politician.

Monkeytoe on May 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM

There is one sure way to stir things up. Ask Joe Biden to clear up what happened. He wouldn’t be able to help himself. He knows it’s the only likely way that he will ever be President.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Critical Mass….finally. And yet again the lame stream media is dragged kicking and screaming to the story. If we had an impartial media, Obama would have been a one term president over this, but no, we got to have Romney dragged through the fire over his “mistake” in a debate over the word terror…..so disgusted. But ultimately, Hillary will deny knowledge, her chief of staff will take the hit and she runs scott free in 2016…..unreal

lostinjrz on May 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Did Jay Carney lie, or was he deceived?

That’s an excellent question, and one I’d love to find out the answer to. I don’t think Tony Snow would not have allowed to let himself be used to advance some agenda he knew wasn’t true, but I’m not sure about Carney…he seems pretty anti-Republican and partisan at times so maybe he just went along. He doesn’t strike me as one who would object to saying whatever the administration told him to say. Just like Susan Rice. Part of me thinks he’s not an idiot, though, he had to know that the video story hadn’t been credible from the start.

scalleywag on May 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Fox Report: “Several More” Benghazi Whistleblowers May Come Forward Including CIA Officials…

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM

That would be sweet!

scalleywag on May 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I’m sure the remake of all this will finally end and the surprise ending will be the sworn truth by this administration. It get s more and more difficult to make up stories to feed the public. Newspapers and news magazines are a thing of the past with their constant editing making news days and weeks old. The net has made it possible to send news to the world in micro-seconds. It’ll only be a matter of time when our government controls the net. If you get high profile you’ll disappear.

mixplix on May 11, 2013 at 12:13 PM

hmmm kind of like the birth certificate. aka all the revisions.

johnnyU on May 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Oh the irony, I guess the lying Carney and the lying WH really are perfecting the art of smoke and mirrors! It looks as though Carney was blowing so much smoke they had to evacuate the WH press room!

Liberty or Death on May 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Carney was lying, is lying, and will keep on lying until he is laughed off the podium by the finally-repelled Press.

profitsbeard on May 12, 2013 at 3:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4