Four Pinocchios for Obama on Benghazi terror claim

posted at 9:21 am on May 14, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, Barack Obama tried to shrug off another of the burgeoning scandals in Washington during a joint press conference with UK PM David Cameron.  Allowing the US press just one question, Obama called on the AP’s Julie Pace, and probably regretted doing so almost immediately.  (It could have been worse; had it been later in the day, she probably would have asked him why he wanted to look at her phone records.) Pace managed to offer a multi-tiered question, one portion of which asked Obama why the post-Benghazi talking points got massaged so heavily as to remove any hint that the consulate had been attacked by terrorists.

Obama responded by falling back on the myth of his own making:

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

Glenn Kessler objects, giving the statement four Pinocchios in the Washington Post today. The Rose Garden speech, Kessler reports — again — addressed terrorism in general, not the Benghazi attack.  Over the next several days, Obama had three opportunities to call it a terrorist attack, but declined to do so.

For instance, here’s Obama with Steve Kroft on September 12th being asked the very question:

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Thirteen days later, Obama still didn’t use the T-word when asked directly, on ABC’s The View:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie — or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

Kessler concludes:

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question. …

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

McClatchy has a different question.  How did the US end up clinging to the story of a spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video with no evidence at all to support it, while ignoring the obvious and immediate evidence of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11?

Lost in the controversy over who requested revisions of CIA-written talking points on September’s attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans is one key fact: In every iteration of the document, the CIA asserted that a video protest preceded the assaults, and no official reviewing the talking points suggested that that was in error.

Yet interviews with U.S. officials and others indicate that they knew nearly immediately that there had been no protest outside the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi before attackers stormed it, setting a fire that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, a State Department computer expert. A subsequent attack on a CIA annex nearby killed two security contractors, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Why the CIA insisted that there had been a protest tied to a YouTube video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad for several days after the attack, mirroring some news reports, has never been publicly explained.

McClatchy, in a dispatch the day after the assault on the complex, quoted the landlord of the building that housed the U.S. mission as saying there had been no protest before the attack began. “They attacked right away,” Mohammed al Bishari said. A Libyan security guard gave a similar account two days after the attack, describing the area outside the mission as quiet before the attack. “There wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said.

But those reports were hardly the only evidence available before the controversial talking points were completed Sept. 15. The guards who were at the compound said there was no protest before the attack. So did European diplomats and residents who were nearby. State Department officials watched the attack in real time from security cameras mounted around the Benghazi compound. Libya’s president called claims of a protest beforehand “preposterous.”

Still, the claim that a protest preceded the attack remained unchallenged, even as officials deleted from the talking points references to previous CIA warnings about declining security in Libya and to suspicions that a local militant group, Ansar al Sharia, had led the attack.

I don’t think that question has been “lost in the controversy” at all.  Maybe McClatchy just hasn’t been reporting on it, but that’s been the question all along.  Why did the Obama administration offer the ridiculous YouTube story from the beginning all the way to Obama’s UN speech rather than tell the truth about what had happened to the consulate in Benghazi? That lead is worth a Pinocchio of its own.

Meanwhile, Darrell Issa confirms that he’s going to be a very busy man:


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

Youtube is forever Mr. President!

nuff said

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:22 AM

“I just learned it in the newspaper like you folks”

Electrongod on May 14, 2013 at 9:23 AM

The POTUS lied to the American people and challenges the American media to do something about it…over to you State Run Media.

d1carter on May 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Ok house gop…if the dems can use kessler so can you

Do it

cmsinaz on May 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Even some libs realize you cannot refer to vague unnamed “acts of terror” three times in a couple of days, explicitly refuse to call Benghazi an act of terrorism a couple of times in that time frame, and then months later claim you said it was an act of terrorism all along and from the beginning. At least not if you are honest and truthful.

Even some libs realize that there was some very careful selection and parsing of words being done by Comrade O and his people in the days and weeks after the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Dear Leader was lying to the American people then and he is lying to them now.

farsighted on May 14, 2013 at 9:28 AM

This presidency is falling apart faster than a Mexican sports car.

Chuck Schick on May 14, 2013 at 9:28 AM

That’s the problem: this president doesn’t really think that it was terrorism, that perhaps the attackers had legit grievances. And I say that it should have been classified as terrorism the moment those thugs stepped onto our Consulate with murderous intent, even if it had been that stupid otherwise-forgotten video that “made” them do it.

thebrokenrattle on May 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

How nice of Mr. Kessler to “promptly” arrive at a conclusion most Americans knew already, including Candy, “I’m an independent non-partisan moderator” Crowley who had joined the complicit media as puppets of the Obama administration.

And, the “side-show” is our dear liberal progressive friends who refuse to admit the facts that 12 revisions, and the scrubbing of a known terrorist attack BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT WITH THE BLESSING OF THE WHITE HOUSE to fit a political narrative, are a best disingenuous and at worst delusional.

Rovin on May 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed.

Because the media were not interested in doing harm to their candidate.

Still, the claim that a protest preceded the attack remained unchallenged,

Because the media were not interested in doing harm to their candidate.

BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Nary a peep about the video from lsm….they are avoiding it big time

cmsinaz on May 14, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Boehner needs to get off his A** and appoint an independent special prosecutor.

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:30 AM

I have been saying this from the beginning.

No evidence of AQ involvement, but ample evidence for the video ?
How is this ? Careful on one hand, but reckless on the other.

Obama NEEDED to have the video story for the UN speech he was about to give.

Once that was done, the story began to change.

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Terrorist have been hitting the US for years.The public would have understood it was a terror attack and would have rallied behind the government.They took a simple attack and turned it into a complete boondoggle for no reason.Smart power my a$$.

docflash on May 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

We now have a rogue government…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Pinocchios should be re-named Candy Crowley-os… or maybe Creepy Crowley-os.

rhombus on May 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Anybody seen any reports on how the Youtube video was inserted into the lie about Benghazi…?

d1carter on May 14, 2013 at 9:34 AM

I hate it when it does that. Sorry.

kingsjester on May 14, 2013 at 9:35 AM

We now have credible evidence of a rogue government…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM

fify

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

It is of a piece with the American Embassy in Cairo apologising for the YouTube video BEFORE the protest took place – even though it was well-known that the stated reason for the protest in Cairo was NOT the video, but to demand the release of the Blind Sheikh.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I think the WH strategy here is to overwhelm Darrell Issa with so many scandals at once that he doesn’t have enough time to investigate any of them…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM

All the President’s Men: Part Two. With the events that are still unfolding, (including 1) the collusion between the White House and the State Department to revise the events that took place in Benghazi, 2) the still breaking scandal of the IRS selectively attacking/targeting conservative organizations), we now have an apparent illegal breech of privacy by the Dept. of Justice. That any entity of the Federal Government would secretly seize phone conversations of a world-wide non-profit news gathering cooperative should send shivers down the backs of the American Public, and more importantly, the potential constitutional intrusion of the 1st and 4th amendments. In the interest of all U.S. citizens, who put their trust in the Constitutional guidelines that protect all of us from an over-zealous Federal Government, the Associated Press, and all news organizations should pursue the validity of these actions vigorously. As a personal point of observation, there has been a large portion of the branch of the fourth estate, (specifically the New York Times and the Washington Post and in some instances the Associated Press), who, in my humble opinion, have been complicit in ignoring these serious breeches of national trust in this current administration. Whether by political ideology, or their own self-interest, these media entities have lost the true meaning of watch-dogs that insures the public trust that the Government MAY NOT infringe or interfere with printing and distribution of information or opinions. Instead, these news outlets have, by their own attrition become “the voice” of this administration and not the protectors of the people. To call these people “independent journalist” has become the laughing stalk of the national news media. It is not surprising that they have suddenly found themselves the targets of Federal Government when they appear to be one and the same. ~ Rov

Also posted at Breitbart Dot Com in comments

Rovin on May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM

As I said on another thread: the media made him and they can break him if they get angry enough. This latest stunt of tapping their lines, etc. may have been a poke at a hornet’s nest.

totherightofthem on May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Checkout Drudge’s frontpage…

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Denial is a river in Egypt that is rainin’ on Il Duce’s parade…

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM

How many does Candy Crowley get for debate reform acne?

Herb on May 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM

It should be interesting to see what his approval ratings will be next week…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Correctomundo…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

No evidence of AQ involvement, but ample evidence for the video ?

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Plus, there was no explicit mention of a video in the Benghazi talking points before or after the 12 revisions and edits.

Also, blaming what happened in Cairo, on the anniversary of 9/11, on a video that was released months before, is lame. The most that could be semi-legitimately claimed is that anti-American Muslims used the video, well after it was released, on that date in particular to whip up a low-info low-IQ crowd of fundamentalist Muslims and send them off to assault, burn, and pillage the US embassy. If they hadn’t used the video they would have found something else. And it was almost certainly done with the knowledge and silent approval of a Muslim Brotherhood led Egyptian government.

farsighted on May 14, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Intent will lose to semantics, witness Bill O’Reilly parsing words to defend Obama. “The President and his people think they did nothing wrong telling the world that a video MIGHT have caused the terrorist attack” Keep spinning Bill, maybe you’ll get a ride on Air Force One after all!

dmann on May 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

dmann on May 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I stopped watching that blowhard years ago…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

President Obama knows he’s in trouble when Andrea Mitchell—Andrea Mitchell!—proclaims the IRS and AP scandals to be among “the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen” in all her years in journalism [which pre-date Watergate].

The strength of Mitchell’s statement drew gasps from Scarborough and Brzezinski. Then Ron Fournier, former AP editor now with the National Journal, darkly described the White House being “consumed” if it turns out someone there or in the Obama campaign had been aware of the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM

The stench coming from the White House may attract the attention of the EPA…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Obama was doing better when he refused to talk to the press. Now that he is, he’s gonna sink his own ship. It’s almost like Capt. Smith of Titanic, when told of the iceberg, ordering, “Full steam ahead!”

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Why did the Obama administration offer the ridiculous YouTube story from the beginning all the way to Obama’s UN speech rather than tell the truth about what had happened to the consulate in Benghazi? That lead is worth a Pinocchio of its own.

Same reason Dear Liar’s regime is using the Newtown shooting: to assault our Natural Rights.
Newtown = take away the Second Amendment.
Benghazi = take away the First Amendment.

rbj on May 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

“We were trying to avoid agitating any terrorist groups before we had all of our facts”…..”I called it terrorism the very next day”…

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Why did the Obama administration offer the ridiculous YouTube story from the beginning

Because there was an election to be won! And one of Barry’s talking points was the “success” of his “Smart Diplomacy”.

GarandFan on May 14, 2013 at 9:48 AM

“I just learned it in the newspaper like you folks”

Electrongod on May 14, 2013 at 9:23 AM

The former CEO of ENRON tried this defense, and failed.

“I had no idea everyone around me was a crook”

BobMbx on May 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

Lie! Four Pinocchios. In one of his very few press conferences. Lie. blatant lie.

He wants it both ways. To both not to have said it, and to say that he said it. You can’t have it both ways! Over and over again, Obama doesn’t understand basic truths about life. That you “can’t have your cake and eat it too”. He wants to be above everything, and yet at the same time be the leader of the free world. He wants ridiculous spending levels, and leftist policies, yet portray himself as some kind of sensible compromiser. He wants to be seen as a healer when he divides on class and race and political party as a matter of course.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Obama on Benghazi: “There is no ‘there’ there.”

That’s not for you to decide, Chauncey. Oops! You weren’t ‘Being There,’ now, were you, champ?

And, the timeline says otherwise.

Why did you fail to attend a Presidential Daily Briefing from 6 September 2012 to 13 September 2012?

Where were you after your meeting with Secretary Panetta and Chairman of Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey ended at 5:30 PM EST?

Who disobeyed the order to ‘make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to’ that you have claimed that you gave?

Why did the American Embassy in Cairo apologise for the YouTube video BEFORE ANY protest took place ANYWHERE?

Why did Secretary Clinton blame the YouTube video at @10:07 PM EST 09.11.12 AFTER she was told by then deputy chief of mission in Libya that the attack was a terrorist attack and the video played NO role?

Why did you refuse to call it an ‘act of terror’ in the Rose Garden and blame the YouTube video instead?

Why did you refuse to call it an ‘act of terror’ minutes after your Rose Garden speech in your interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on 12 September 2012?

Why did your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, blame the YouTube video on 13 September 2012?

Why did Secretary Clinton publicly blame the YouTube video on 14 September 2012?

Why did you, along with Clinton, Biden, and Panetta, tell the mum of Sean Smith and the father of Ty Woods, who were both killed in the attack, that the video was the cause on 14 September 2012?

Why did you blame the video in your Saturday morning weekly address on 15 September 2012?

Why did your Justice Department take Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in for an interview about possible probation violations related to the distribution of the film, ‘The Innocence of Muslims,’ on the internet on 15 September 2012?

Why did Ambassador Rice tell 300+ million Americans that the video was the cause on FIVE Sunday talk shows on 16 September 2012?

Why did your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, blame the YouTube video on 18 September 2012?

Why did you tell Letterman the same thing on 18 September 2012?

Why did your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, blame the YouTube video on 20 September 2012?

Why did you blame the video during the townhall on Univision on 20 September 2012?

Why did you and Secretary Clinton appear in ads on Pakistani television condemning the YouTube video at a cost of $70,000 on 21 September 2012?

Why did you tell Joy Behar on The View that Mr Nakoula’s film was responsible for Benghazi on 25 September 2012?

Why did you bring up the video 6 times in your speech before the UN on 25 September 2012 when you only brought up terror once and then only in the context of Iran?

Why did you, on 27 September 2012, have US Federal authorities arrest filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles, charge him with 8 counts of probation violation (some of the charges relate to statements he made relative to the film and the alias ‘Sam Bacile,’ but none is for the use of the internet), deny him bail, put him in solitary confinement, and only give him his first hearing the day after the American presidential elections?

Why did your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, blame the intelligence community for misinformation on 2 October 2012 when it had not only warned on several occasions BEFORE the attack, but said that Benghazi was a terrorist attack that was carried out by Ansar al-Sharia and elements of al-Qaeda immediately and only revised the talking points at the direction of the White House and the State Department?

Why have you and your subordinates continuously claimed that neither the White House nor the State Department changed anything in the talking points other than to change the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic mission’ when emails and Deputies Meeting on 15 September 2012 prove otherwise?

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

To me, the bigger scandal here is the failure to heed repeated warnings regarding attacks at the consulate and ignoring requests for additional security. I think that is getting lost in the focus on what they said and when they said it. We all know they changed the talking points for political reasons, but there is just enough wiggle room (vague references to an act of terror, “fog of war” excuses, etc) that it will seem to be arguing over semantics. It’s important to ask why they said what they did, but the bigger questions is why our ambassador was left to essentially fend for himself and why, afterward, the President jetted off to Vegas for fundraisers.

changer1701 on May 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I posted my comment before I read yours! GMTA. Obama doesn’t get it. In many ways, he’s childish.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Focusing on the video excuse is the wrong approach. How about 1) with all of the attacks taking place in Libya preceding 9/11/12, why was security not enhanced 2) once the attack began, what specifically did the President do for the next 7 hours? Do not let them control the Benghazi narrative when we still have 4 bodies and 0 suspects in custody.

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Youtube is forever Mr. President!

nuff said

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Not so sure about that…YouTube is owned by Google, a BIG fan and supporter of Obama…

EasyEight on May 14, 2013 at 9:55 AM

+1 to Paul-Cincy and RWR’s recap.

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 9:55 AM

How can a President conceivably survive any of this???

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM

I sure hope Obama’s calling “squirrel” isn’t going to detract from any of the corruption scandals that are surfacing faster than whale dung from the deep blue waters of concealment.

“Fast and Furious”=”Benghazi Coverup”=”IRS harassment”=”DOJ AP wiretaps”=Obama Administration Tyranny.

iamsaved on May 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Dear Leader and his henchmen have been made possible by a compliant and complicit American media…let’s not forget that as some of those same people turn on him.

d1carter on May 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

That’s the problem with lying, eventually you forget what you said and end up contradicting yourself.

Bishop on May 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I guess it’s time for a foreign trip or a vacation…

PatriotRider on May 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

To me, the bigger scandal here is the failure to heed repeated warnings regarding attacks at the consulate and ignoring requests for additional security.

changer1701 on May 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I agree. But perhaps the YouTube video and such was to cover up that failure. Don’t blame Hillary. Blame YouTube. “It had nothing to do with the State Department, or Obama, or Hillary. It was that DAMN VIDEO!”. It’s like a kid who says his dog ate his homework, and then his parents quibble over what kind of dog it was, whether dogs even eat homework … no. The kid didn’t do his homework. Hillary let security slide; four brave diplomats died. She tried to cover that up by blaming a YouTube video. The dog ate the recommendations for additional security.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

“Horse roundup spurs a Western showdown” – That’s the top story at MSNBC.COM right now.

brewcrew67 on May 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM

The Way Obama Wants Us To Think:

The problem is there is no there there!
Because if there was any there there, it would be there!
But there is no there there, and it’s not over there or over there! Because if it was over there, the there would be there!
But the there is no there, so there is no there there!
So there!

The End Result Of Thinking The Way Obama Wants Us To Think:

And………..
They’re coming to take me away, Ha-Ha!
They’re coming to take me away, Hee-Hee! Ho-Ho! Ha-Ha!
To the Funny Farm…………

pilamaye on May 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM

changer1701 on May 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM

GMTA :)

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

CNN updated…For what it’s worth

(CNN) — Questions surrounding the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead will again be in the spotlight with hearings on Capitol Hill.

Here’s a look at notable comments made by administration officials, publicly and in interviews with CNN, since the attack:

CNN Fact Check – Terrorist Attack

—–

2012

September 12 — President Barack Obama

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. … No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”

September 12 — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none.”

September 12 — White House spokesman Jay Carney, in response to questions about whether the attack was planned

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

September 12 — Obama, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, again uses the “act of terror” line

“No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

He repeats the line again the next day in Golden, Colorado. “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

September 13 — Jay Carney

“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

September 13 — A senior U.S. official tells CNN that the Benghazi violence was a “clearly planned attack”

“It was not an innocent mob,” the official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

September 13 — State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland

“Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”

September 14 — Jay Carney

“We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 16 — Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.”

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Rice also said that, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

September 18 — Jay Carney

“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. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

September 19 — Jay Carney

“It is a simple fact that there are, in post-revolution, postwar Libya, armed groups, there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites or American sites. … Right now I’m saying we don’t have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a — to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary.”

September 19 — Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, responding to a question by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman on whether the attack was a terrorist attack

“They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.” Olson also said U.S. officials had no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

September 20 — Jay Carney

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

September 20 — President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univision Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda

“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

September 21 — Hillary Clinton

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

September 25 — President Obama on ABC’s “The View,” in response to interviewer Joy Behar’s question, “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

“We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.” Obama also said “extremist militias” were suspected to have been involved.

September 26 — Hillary Clinton

“What is happening inside Mali is augmented by the rising threat from violent extremism across the region. For some time, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

September 27 — Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

“It was a terrorist attack. … As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”

September 27 — A senior U.S. official tells CNN that it became clear within about a day of the Benghazi attack that it been the work of terrorists

Separately, CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend reports that a law enforcement source told her that “from day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack.”

September 28 — Statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

“In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation, we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

October 1 — Nuland, in response to calls from Rep. Peter King, R-California, for Rice to resign because her remarks about the attack were, according to him, misleading:

“Well, let me start by saying that Secretary Clinton believes that Ambassador Rice has done a superb job. So let’s just start there, and we completely reject any such calls here in this building.”

October 1 — Nuland, responding to a question about whether officials in Libya had sought additional security for diplomatic installations and personnel there

“I think it’s fair to say that we are still working through what we have in this building in terms of documentation, in terms of information about what we knew, who knew it, when they knew it, and that’s part of the process that we have to go through.”

October 2 — Carney

“I can tell you that from the moment our facility was attacked in Benghazi, the president’s focus has been on securing our diplomats and facilities in Libya and around the world, and on bringing the killers to justice. At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it.”

October 9 — During a background briefing with reporters, a senior State Department official responding to a question about whether the attack was a spontaneous assault taking advantage of a demonstration over the movie

“That is a question that you would have to ask, have to ask others. That was not, that was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion.”

The background briefing contains detailed information about the attack, including how dozens of armed men stormed the complex as Stevens and two security team members took refuge in a fortified room.

“The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented,” one official said. “There had been no attacks like that anywhere in Libya — Tripoli, Benghazi or anywhere — in the time that we had been there. And so it is unprecedented, in fact, it would be very, very hard to find precedent for an attack like (it) in recent diplomatic history.”

October 9 — Clapper, during a speech in Orlando

Upon returning from a trip to Australia, Clapper said, he was “reading the media clips about the hapless, hopeless, helpless, inept, incompetent DNI, because I acknowledged publicly that we didn’t instantly have that ‘God’s eye, God’s ear’ certitude” about what had happened.

He later added, in answer to a question: “The challenge is always a tactical warning, the exact insights ahead of time that such an attack is going to take place, and obviously we did not have that. This gets into the mysteries versus secrets thing. If people don’t behave, emit a behavior or talk or something else ahead of time to be detected, it’s going to be very hard to predict an exact attack and come up with an exact attack.”

October 10 — Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, in congressional testimony

“No one in the administration has claimed to know all the answers. We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has evolved.”

In the same hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb testified that the State Department “had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time.”

October 10 — Obama, in an ABC interview

“The information may not have always been right the first time. And as soon as it turns out that we have a fuller picture of what happened, then that was disclosed.”

October 10 — Carney, responding to questions about whether administration officials had misled the public because they did not want to acknowledge a terrorist attack

“The president of the United States referred to it as an act of terror immediately after it occurred.”

“I never said we don’t know if it’s terrorism. There was an issue about the definition of terrorism. This is by definition an act of terror, as the president made clear.”

October 11 — Vice President Joe Biden, during his debate with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, responding to a question about what the administration knew about security requests from Libya:

“We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”

October 12 — Carney, asked to respond to Biden’s comments

“The vice president was speaking about himself, and the president and the White House. He was not referring to the administration, clearly, since there was a public hearing for four and a half hours where it was discussed openly by individuals working at the State Department requests that were made.”

October 15 — Clinton, in an interview with CNN

“I take responsibility. I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

October 16 — Obama, speaking to GOP challenger Mitt Romney at their second debate

“The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened; that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”

“I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home.”

October 18 — Obama talking to Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”

“The government is a big operation and any given time, something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it.”

“When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it.”

When Stewart asked about “confusion” over the Benghazi attack, the president laid out what he learned from the situation.

“(We) weren’t confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed. I wasn’t confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened. I wasn’t confused about the fact that we had to investigate exactly what happened so it gets fixed. And I wasn’t confused about the fact that we’re going to hunt down whoever did it.”

October 19 — Several senior administration officials tell CNN UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s use of the word “spontaneous” was a poor word choice

Several officials say instead of calling it “spontaneous” – it might have been better phrased as: the attack had not been long planned; or there were no signs of an upcoming attack on September 11th. Rice relied on talking points provided by the CIA that were not edited by the White House.

October 22 — Sen. John McCain of Arizona questions the president on Libya

McCain bashes the Obama administration saying it has failed to explain why it was not prepared for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which killed four Americans.

“It’s either absolute and total incompetence, or willfully deceiving the American people. How he thinks he can fool the American people on this one, I don’t know.”

October 24 — CNN obtains emails showing evidence that the White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack

Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.

One of the e-mails – sent from a State Department address to various government agencies – specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.

The e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September attack and those who planned it.

October 24 — Hillary Clinton on emails

“The Independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything, not cherry picking one story here or one document there but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex an attack like this.”

“You know, posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”

October 24 — Jay Carney noted the e-mail about the claim of responsibility

“Was an open-source, unclassified e-mail referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously.”

“The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible.”

November 1 — Intelligence official offers new timeline for Benghazi attack

A senior U.S. intelligence official emphatically denied that the CIA refused repeated requests from its officers on the ground in Benghazi, to assist the Americans under attack at the U.S. mission there.

The official offered almost a minute-by-minute account of what happened that night.

According to a Fox News report, citing an unnamed source, CIA officers working at an annex about a mile from the mission were told by officials in the CIA chain of command to “stand down” after receiving a call from the mission asking for help.

“There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support,” the senior intelligence official said, offering a passionate defense of the actions taken by the CIA officers on the ground during the September 11 attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The official insisted the agency operators at the annex were in charge of their movements and the safety of those who were preparing to respond to the initial attack on the mission compound.

November 9 — Timeline released

The Pentagon released Friday an hour-by-hour timeline of the September 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, highlighting when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and senior commanders were informed of the attack and when decisions were made to move forces to assist.

November 15 — Benghazi hearing takes place

Republicans and Democrats attended closed-door sessions of the House and Senate intelligence committees. They vowed to keep asking questions, and keep holding hearings, to determine not only how Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died but also whether officials were forthright in the attack’s aftermath.

“A lot of light was shone on this situation,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said after a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which she chairs. “But we don’t have all the facts yet. We are, in effect, fact-finding.”

Added the committee’s vice chairman, Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, “Were mistakes made? Gosh, we know mistakes were made, and we’ve got to learn from that.”

Legislators saw a “real-time film (showing) exactly what happened” on September 11 in Benghazi, starting before the attack began up “through the incident and the exodus,” said Feinstein. A source familiar with the House committee hearing said the video included shots of Stevens being dragged out of the building. Sen. Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, described the footage as “a combination of video from a surveillance camera and a drone.”

“It gave us a good picture, from the surveillance standpoint, what was happening,” Coats said.

“What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed — read that, lied — to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, a GOP member of the House Foreign Affairs committee that on Thursday convened a panel of experts not directly connected with the Benghazi attack. “The arrogance and dishonesty reflected in all of this is a little bit breathtaking.”

November 16 — Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill

Petreaus said that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

November 19 — Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intelligence community

The intelligence community – not the White House, State Department or Justice Department – was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said.

December 14 — Susan Rice withdraws from consideration as secretary of state

After heavy criticism from Republicans over her statements after the attacks, Rice withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, she said “the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive, and costly — to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities. That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country.”

——-

2013

January 8, 2013 — Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on the confirmation of John Brennan as Director of the CIA

“I have not forgotten about the Benghazi debacle and still have many questions about what transpired before, during and after the attack on our consulate.

“In that regard, I do not believe we should confirm anyone as Director of the CIA until our questions are answered — like who changed Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points and deleted the references to Al-Qaeda? My support for a delay in confirmation is not directed at Mr. Brennan, but is an unfortunate, yet necessary action to get information from this Administration.

“I have tried — repeatedly — to get information on Benghazi but my requests have been repeatedly ignored.

“We were first told the Director of National Intelligence deleted the Al-Qaeda reference in the talking points because they did not want to let al Qaeda know we were monitoring them. We were then told the FBI changed the talking points so as not to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. Finally, during a meeting with Ambassador Rice and acting-CIA Director Morrell, I was told it was the FBI who changed the talking points. However, later in the day the clarified it was the CIA who had changed the talking points.

“This ever-changing story should be resolved. It is imperative we understand who changed the talking points just weeks before a presidential election and why. The stonewalling on Benghazi by the Obama Administration must come to an end.”

January 23 — Hillary Clinton

“We continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice.”

“There’s evidence that the attacks were deliberate, opportunistic and pre-coordinated but not necessarily indicative of extensive planning.”

January 28 — Rep. Senator Lindsey Graham on Fox News

“I haven’t forgotten about Benghazi. Hillary Clinton got away with murder, in my view. She said they had a clear-eyed view of the threats. How could you have a clear-eyed view of the threats in Benghazi when you didn’t know about the ambassador’s cable coming back from Libya?”

“But she (Clinton) said two things that will come back to haunt her: that they had a clear-eyed assessment of the threats in Libya, and that they had close contact with the Libyan government. I don’t believe either one of them.”

January 29 — Hillary Clinton on CNN

Asked in a CNN interview why she didn’t “connect the dots” about some of the security threats that existed in Libya before the attack, Clinton said those threats were considered “manageable” by the State Department’s evaluation and security professionals.

“We have a lot of (threats) around the world. I mean there is a long list of attacks that have been foiled, assassination plots that have been prevented, so this is not some one-off event. This is considered in an atmosphere of a lot of threats and dangers, and at the end of the day, there was a decision made that this would be evaluated but (the Consulate) would not be closed, and, unfortunately, we know what happened.”

Link at CNN politics

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Hey Candy Crowley said Obama was right – what else do you need?

Tom C on May 14, 2013 at 10:01 AM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 12m

Obama’s scandals aren’t anything like Watergate. In Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein weren’t married to G. Gordon Liddy.

Yeppers. Back then, ‘Deep Throat’ wasn’t a reference to the wife.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Youtube is forever Mr. President!

nuff said

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Not so sure about that…YouTube is owned by Google, a BIG fan and supporter of Obama…

EasyEight on May 14, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Well they can try and censor it but there’s that pesky Streisand effect

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 12m

Obama’s scandals aren’t anything like Watergate. In Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein weren’t married to G. Gordon Liddy.

Yeppers. Back then, ‘Deep Throat’ wasn’t a reference to the wife.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM

HA!

True that…

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Not so sure about that…YouTube is owned by Google, a BIG fan and supporter of Obama…

EasyEight on May 14, 2013 at 9:55 AM

They’re really good at “scrubbing” anything that imperils the narrative.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Because there was an election to be won! And one of Barry’s talking points was the “success” of his “Smart Diplomacy”.

It’s the same “smart diplomacy” that put us in Libya without consent from Congress, despite the fact the Al Qaeda was part of the Libyian rebels. Since they wanted to support the “good” Libyian government, the Obama administration let its guard down on security. It’s not as if Al Qaeda had vanished from Libyia, but the Obama administration wanted to make it look as if it had.

Vera71 on May 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Not so sure about that…YouTube is owned by Google, a BIG fan and supporter of Obama…

EasyEight on May 14, 2013 at 9:55 AM

They’re really good at “scrubbing” anything that imperils the narrative.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

pops back up anyway…

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Obama is a terrible president and a lying piece of low class trash.

bluegill on May 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I agree. But perhaps the YouTube video and such was to cover up that failure. Don’t blame Hillary. Blame YouTube. “It had nothing to do with the State Department, or Obama, or Hillary. It was that DAMN VIDEO!”. It’s like a kid who says his dog ate his homework, and then his parents quibble over what kind of dog it was, whether dogs even eat homework … no. The kid didn’t do his homework. Hillary let security slide; four brave diplomats died. She tried to cover that up by blaming a YouTube video. The dog ate the recommendations for additional security.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Sure. I just wonder if the cover up aspect is masking the bigger issue. The two do go hand in hand, but I’m not sure that connection is really being made; when I see people ask what the big deal is, they give the admin slack because it sounds reasonable that they’d hesitate to definitively say it was an act of terrorism publicly until they were sure. They have no knowledge of prior attacks at the consulate or requests for additional security, so they don’t get why it amounts to a cover up.

changer1701 on May 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

If hussein wants to say it was terrorism now, then shouldn’t the press ask him why he hasn’t brought any of them to justice? Some libs were telling me I was being impatient for a few months and then on some date it became “move on, it’s ancient history”. The question tthat is never talked about is why he refuses to bring them to justice.

Buddahpundit on May 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM

pops back up anyway…

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Oh? I’m still looking for the Youtube video of Alan Keyes’s question to Obama during their Senate race and Obama’s response regarding his only seeking a “middle management position” as regards his eligibility for National office.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Oh? I’m still looking for the Youtube video of Alan Keyes’s question to Obama during their Senate race and Obama’s response regarding his only seeking a “middle management position” as regards his eligibility for National office.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

maybe start here…got it off Google under Alan Keyes questions Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUTvCiNduv8

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Google search : Alan Keyes questions Obama
About 984,000 results…

http://www.google.com/search?q=alan+keyes+questions+Obama&prmd=ivnso&source=univ&tbm=vid&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=sEiSUYDMIqHY0gGt34GoDQ&ved=0CB8Q7Qk

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Darrell Issa needs to invest in some round-the-clock protection for himself and his family.

Oh, wait…what am I saying? No peaceful liberal would ever resort to acts of violence or hatred.

Chris of Rights on May 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

He wants it both ways. To both not to have said it, and to say that he said it. You can’t have it both ways!

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Ha. I just clicked on the video above. Megyn Kelly interviewing Issa, one of the first things Issa says is:

“The President can’t have it both ways” about when they first knew it was a terrorist attack. Isn’t that a kind way of saying Obama lies? Everyone and their mother is getting hip to Obama’s ways. He says contradictory things, and then smiles, and then everyone’s supposed to buy it. How does he think he can defend such a position?

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Good observations here by Doc Zero (I think): http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/13/enter-the-non-president-and-his-un-administration/

Also

It is of a piece with the American Embassy in Cairo apologising for the YouTube video BEFORE the protest took place – even though it was well-known that the stated reason for the protest in Cairo was NOT the video, but to demand the release of the Blind Sheikh.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The Cairo embassy attack was riddled with perpetrators flying the black flag of AlQaeda.

onlineanalyst on May 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

I’m supposed to digest all this right after breakfast? : )

I’d only like to add that not only did Susan Rice say

“We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

I heard another of her comments that same day saying essentially

“We don’t have any information to INDICATE
(much less conclude) that it was anything other than the video.”

Sorry I don’t have a link to give. But that’s just damning based on Hicks’ testimony.

questionmark on May 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM

You felt you had to win at any cost. Well, Mr. President, you were never very good at computing costs. To the Constitution…of Obamacare…of National Debt…and now of BENIRSAP.

The bad news is your administration is about to come to a fullstop, gridlocked. The good news is you won’t have to worry about any more “bumps in the road.”

Limpet6 on May 14, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Dear Leader and his henchmen have been made possible by a compliant and complicit American media…let’s not forget that as some of those same people turn on him.

d1carter on May 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I doubt that.

VegasRick on May 14, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Just read Drudge.
Holy crap, if he resigns or is impeached we get Joe.
That was my only thought.
What a mess the low information crowd has given us.

ORconservative on May 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Hmm.How ’bout that. Thanks.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Holy crap, if he resigns or is impeached we get Joe.
That was my only thought.
What a mess the low information crowd has given us.

ORconservative on May 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Yeah, but imagine them trying to defend HIM. They adore Obama; they KNOW Joe’s an idiot.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Obama’s chickens … are coming home … to roost.

Credit to Reverend G.D. America

VibrioCocci on May 14, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Obama has succumbed to Goebbel’s belief “repeat a lie often enough…”. He’s repeated the lie for so long now he believes he said then it was an act of terrorism. The problem with telling a lie is it’s difficult to remember the last iteration of the lie. I doubt he’s getting much sleep these days and he’ll be more easily agitated and capable of aggression. This is going to be fun to watch.

TulsAmerican on May 14, 2013 at 10:56 AM

A mere four Pinocchios for the master of lies and bs? These whoppers have earned more like 4000 Pinocchios.

stukinIL4now on May 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Intent will lose to semantics, witness Bill O’Reilly parsing words to defend Obama. “The President and his people think they did nothing wrong telling the world that a video MIGHT have caused the terrorist attack” Keep spinning Bill, maybe you’ll get a ride on Air Force One after all!

dmann on May 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

My Fox News watching is down to five hours a week, that’s Baer X 5. No Ted Baxter.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Holy crap, if he resigns or is impeached we get Joe.
That was my only thought.
What a mess the low information crowd has given us.

ORconservative on May 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Yeah, but imagine them trying to defend HIM. They adore Obama; they KNOW Joe’s an idiot.

Cleombrotus on May 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Unless impeachment snares a complicit Joe the idiot as well…

This is gettin’ really weird.

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Obama has succumbed to Goebbel’s belief “repeat a lie often enough…”. He’s repeated the lie for so long now he believes he said then it was an act of terrorism. The problem with telling a lie is it’s difficult to remember the last iteration of the lie. I doubt he’s getting much sleep these days and he’ll be more easily agitated and capable of aggression. This is going to be fun to watch.

TulsAmerican on May 14, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Yep.

Damn….Democrats shoulda censored that 1984 novel from the schools when they had the chance…

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

0bama is just one of those people that would rather tell a lie than the truth. We all know them. They lie when the truth would better serve their purposes.

BTW, I’m still waiting for my 3000% drop in health insurance premiums.

jukin3 on May 14, 2013 at 11:24 AM

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Exactly.

ORconservative on May 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I am predicting a Chumpthreads, nonpartisan, HAL, verbuliberace, and Mr. Drywall free thread.

can_con on May 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

workingclass artist on May 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Pretty much locks it up.

AesopFan on May 14, 2013 at 1:15 PM

“And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

I guess “bringing these folks to justice” explains the persecution of conservative groups applying for non-profit status. And also the AP phone record stuff.

See, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but the guilty are punished!

Marcola on May 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Meanwhile, the filmmaker who’s video Obama and Hillary blamed for the attacks in Benghazi remains in jail…

Obama’s Benghazi Scapegoat Gets Year In Prison

Scandal: The filmmaker blamed for the terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate and the murder of our ambassador goes to jail for an “unrelated” matter. If you believe that, you also believe al-Qaida is on its heels.

That proverbial midnight knock on the door was a grim reality for Youssef, who previously used the name Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, among others. The man said to be behind the film “Innocence of Muslims” blamed for inciting the Benghazi attack was taken in for “questioning” by no fewer than five Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies at midnight on Sept. 15.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110912-633018-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-goes-to-jail.htm?p=full

I used to believe that this type of abuse of power only happened in 3rd world dictatorships, but Obama and Hillary have proven that it can happen in the USA too.

wren on May 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Here is a link to a video of President Obama’s statement in the Rose Garden with Hillary by his side on the day after the attack in Benghazi:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi#transcript

He spoke for 5:35 minutes referring to “senseless violence” and the “attack in Benghazi” but he only used the word “terror” once and that was at 4:19 AFTER he had switched to talking about the attack on the World Trade Center in New York and other “acts of terror.”

Watch the video for yourself and decide if President Obama ever said the attack in Benghazi was and act of terror.

I think President Obama worked very hard to NOT call Benghazi an act of terrorism.

wren on May 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Paging John Boehner, paging John Boehner. Please pick up the phone to the Special Council’s Office in the lobby. They are waiting for instructions.

Missilengr on May 14, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Who needed McClatchy to tell us this? The story stank like a rotten mackerel from the start, especially when they arrested the loony Basseley Nakoula. Hypocrisy multiplied by venality and lying to the people to save embarrassment over a massive screw-up. Politicians are dishonest, but these are like the Borgias, all the worse for claiming to be holy.

flataffect on May 14, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2