Did the White House selectively leak e-mail to distort Benghazi timeline story? Update: Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails

posted at 9:21 am on May 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In order to understand just how badly the White House may have fumbled this ball, let’s go back to last week.  Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard reported from Congressional sources on a White House-State Department e-mail string that made clear that the administration wanted the talking points on Benghazi massaged to protect sources and its own political goals.  ABCs Jon Karl later reported from the e-mails themselves, showing that the White House and State Department went through 12 versions of talking points before settling on the final version, which CIA Director Davod Petraeus called “useless” and advised against using.

Yesterday, however — not too long before Jay Carney’s press briefing at the White House — Jake Tapper got a leaked version of an e-mail sent by Ben Rhodes that seemed to contradict the reporting from Hayes and Karl:

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

During the press conference, Carney seized on this report to claim that the Benghazi story was a trumped-up non-story:

The only problem with Tapper’s leak was that it was incomplete.  Tapper didn’t get the rest of the e-mail chain, Hayes reported, which provided the context that generated the reporting in the first place:

Neither of my pieces quoted the Rhodes email. This was no accident. Near-verbatim is not verbatim.My first piece quoted the House GOP report on Benghazi and reported that Rhodes suggested taking the issue to the Deputies Committee meeting scheduled for the next day. My second piece paraphrased the House report – attributing concerns to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, the author of the email to which Rhodes was replying, rather than the State Department generally – and reported that Rhodes suggested taking the issue to the Deputies Committee meeting scheduled for the next day. Rhodes did not respond to a request for comment from TWS before the original report on his emails.

Tapper’s report quotes my second piece. I’ve included all of this below – my email to Rhodes, the email that was provided Tapper, and my descriptions of the Rhodes email in two pieces in TWS. …

We don’t know who provided the Ben Rhodes email to CNN, but the leak did not include the earlier emails in the chain among top administration officials. If it had, we would know more about a curious reference on page 20 of the House GOP report. The report describes an email we now know was written by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote to the group that earlier edits to the Benghazi talking points did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” And then, according to the House report, Nuland’s email reported “that the Department’s leadership was consulting with [national security staff].’”

Is this characterization from the House report accurate? Did the consultation happen? If so, who in the State Department leadership spoke with the White House’s national security staff? Why weren’t they satisfied with the earlier edits? What were the remaining “issues” with the talking points?

Jon Karl also stands by his reporting:

But there’s another important note here that touches on State Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”

The e-mail was sent to, among others, officials at the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence office, the National Security Council, and the State Department, including then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The official who provided this e-mail to CNN removed the other e-mail exchanges from other principals. That includes anything written by Nuland, who – as I reported – objected to a paragraph in the draft talking points that referenced prior threats against US and other foreign interests in Libya.

In that e-mail, according to source, Nuland wrote that such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph Nuland was “concerned” about was removed in its entirety. That e-mail has not been disputed by the administration.

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

In other words, someone selectively leaked limited information that deliberately tried to distract from the real story.  If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same kind of effort attempted in the e-mail string itself — by manipulating the Benghazi talking points.  In this case, it worked even less than the original effort; Carney only got one press briefing out of it.  Talk about irony.

The responses from Hayes and Karl both dared the White House to release all of the e-mails rather than just the last in the string, and prove that there is “no there there.”  Tapper concurred after seeing their responses:

Breitbart’s John Nolte called this a major backfire for the Obama administration:

Assuming they are the ones who leaked to CNN an email written by Ben Rhoades (a Deputy National Security Advisor close to the President), the White House might have been too clever by half Tuesday. An act that was obviously meant to pour water on the Benghazi fire started by an ABC News report, has only ended up being gasoline. Now both CNN and ABC have joined conservative media in calling for the White House to release all the emails surrounding the editing of the CIA talking points.

If the White House thinks the Benghazi story is “no there there,” then why not release the entire e-mail chain?  The longer it takes for them to do so, the more it becomes clear that there is a “there there.”

Update: Looks like Hayes, Tapper, and Karl have won a convert:

Wednesday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” guest panelist Steve Rattner, a former New York Times reporter who believes the biggest scandal of the three currently facing the White House is Benghazi, asked David Axelrod what he believes the Administration should do to try and get out from under the scandal. Axelrod said, “I think they would benefit from getting all these emails out in public.”

Would they? Then why haven’t they already done so? The content of these e-mails came out days ago, when Karl reported them over the weekend. If a full release benefited the White House, they would have had them out on Monday.


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

Carnival Carney is Out of Touch!!

canopfor on May 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Breitbart:

***UPDATE: NBC’s senior White House correspondent joined the chorus Wednesday. On his MSNBC show, “The Daily Rundown,” Chuck Todd looked into the camera and said, “Attention White House: Release all the emails.” The headline has been updated to add NBC.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 AM

There is no brain there.

hillsoftx on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 AM

The longer it takes for them to do so, the more it becomes clear that there is a “there there.”

Oh look…
Squirrel….
Where where?

Electrongod on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I imagine off all their scandals, the WH is most afraid of Benghazi.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM

So there!!

Deano1952 on May 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

The B.H.O. Titanic has left the port..

Electrongod on May 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Summary:
1) The White House tried to use Tapper to spin things in their favor. He fell for it.
2) Karl and Hayes, said “Not so fast. Looks like we have more info than you. Our story makes more sense.”
3) Tapper realizes he’s been played, demands accountability from White House.

Did I get that right? If so, what a clusterf**k. These people are setting new records in incompetence and arrogance.

Chris of Rights on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Trying to put out a plasma fire by spraying hydrogen on it.

- Old Royal Manticoran Navy saying for a clusterfark like this.

This is prima facie evidence that the Benghazi “factoids” were manipulated for political gain.

Once more, we see that the “narrative”- and The One’s re-election- were the primary factors being considered. In fact, more like “obsessed over”.

People need to be subpoenaed and need to be deposed under oath. In the end, people need to lose their jobs at the very least.

And that’s just at State. Never mind the rest of it.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Jay Carney is a flat out liar. George Will is right, he’s outlived his usefulness and the longer the regime trots him out, the longer Pinocchio’s nose grows.

rbj on May 15, 2013 at 9:31 AM

There IS a “there”, there.

The White House just does not want you to see it.

Four Americans were murdered. The truth surrounding their deaths may not be important to Mr. Obama. But it is to a plurality of Americans. Especially the part where he went to sleep and then tried to obscure the truth. Lately, it sounds like a modus operandi in the White House

Marcus Traianus on May 15, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Great! Let’s talk about “talking about” Benghazi and ignore the important points. Who gave the stand-down order? What were Barrack, Hillary and Leon doing that night while the heroes were fighting for their lives and waiting in vain for assistance?

indypat on May 15, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Obama”s hubris will be his undoing. Karma, baby, karma.

Just too bad it took this long.

tru2tx on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM

I’m loving every moment of this, every moment. These douchebags are getting caught in their own web which is exactly what happens when you lie. Now they can’t remember their own lies and are compounding the problem by making new ones which contradict the old ones.

Dog Eater won’t allow the email string to be released because it will seal his doom, there’s something very very bad in there which he would be lucky to politically survive.

Bishop on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM

I imagine off all their scandals, the WH and Hillary is most afraid of Benghazi.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Emphasis added…by me

dirtseller on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Poor tapper

cmsinaz on May 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM

There is no truth or integrity there.

The Rogue Tomato on May 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I would also like Romney to testify as to what he was told during the intelligence briefings he received during the campaign. Did he receive the real Benghazi story or the administration’s story. If he was briefed a lie by the administration during the campaign, that’s a serious abuse of the democratic process.

Aplombed on May 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Incredible.Just WOW.

3dpuzzman on May 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I imagine off all their scandals, the WH and Hillary is most afraid of Benghazi.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Yes, and I still don’t know why. Best odds, I’d say it’s because therein we will find an Iran-Contra impeachable misappropriation of Congressional funding.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Head spinning, need to buy a vowel.

msupertas on May 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I imagine of all their scandals, the WH and Hillary is most afraid of Benghazi.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Emphasis added…by me

dirtseller on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Agreed. If this blows back on higher authority, up to at least the Cabinet level, even a fawning media will have trouble ignoring this hung around her neck like Jacob Marley’s fetters, never mind “just” an albatross.

If the Democrats were smart, they’d be looking for another standard bearer already. Of course, with the Hildebeast, that can be dangerous in itself.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Politico still reporting the initial report…anything to defend this admin

cmsinaz on May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Will the 4th shoe be a Libyan gun-running operation?

kingsjester on May 15, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Not only the stand down order but also the question of why were there 20 CIA agents at the Benghazi consulate.

Fast and Furious Part Deux: The Libyan Adventure.

Bishop on May 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM

If the White House thinks the Benghazi story is “no there there,” then why not release the entire e-mail chain?

Yeah, what do they have to be afraid of?

Tapper got played. I guess the CNN Obama love is rubbing off.

Happy Nomad on May 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM

If the White House thinks the Benghazi story is “no there there,” then why not release the entire e-mail chain? The longer it takes for them to do so, the more it becomes clear that there is a “there there.”

Agreed.

Now apply that same logic to the the fact that if is “no there there,” then why not release the hard copy Birth Certificate? What Obama “released” was PDF that a Sheriff’s investigation concluded was a clear forgery.

ITguy on May 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I imagine off all their scandals, the WH and Hillary is most afraid of Benghazi.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Yes, and I still don’t know why. Best odds, I’d say it’s because therein we will find an Iran-Contra impeachable misappropriation of Congressional funding.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Maybe. I’m with you. I don’t understand why the White House is so afraid of this one. It may be worse, but on the surface, it appears that the IRS and AP/DoJ scandals are far more damaging to them, politically.

Both have direct Nixon parallels. The second makes their biggest ally (the press) mad at them, and the first has clear impeachment implications if it can be shown that the problems reach that high.

Chris of Rights on May 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

dirtseller on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Yes, absolutely. Both. I’m hoping that the Bamster and Shrillary, trying to save their own skin by blaming the other, get into a leaking war, each leaking bad stuff about the other.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Summary:
1) The White House tried to use Tapper to spin things in their favor. He fell for it.
2) Karl and Hayes, said “Not so fast. Looks like we have more info than you. Our story makes more sense.”
3) Tapper realizes he’s been played, demands accountability from White House.

Did I get that right? If so, what a clusterf**k. These people are setting new records in incompetence and arrogance.

Chris of Rights on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Thanks! I need a score card.

esr1951 on May 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

1. Reducing consulate security amidst numerous terrorist attacks in the months preceding the Benghazi attack.

2. Issuing stand down orders to available military personnel and contractors in Tripoli and beyond after the attack was underway.

3. Lying to the public and congress about the nature and cause of the attack and the ensuing attempts to cover up what happened there.

4. Hiding or preventing media or congressional access to the survivors of the attack.

5. Four dead Americans, murdered on foreign soil.

There’s plenty of ‘there’ there.

TXUS on May 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Don’t forget this:
President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

Brat on May 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Yes, and I still don’t know why. Best odds, I’d say it’s because therein we will find an Iran-Contra impeachable misappropriation of Congressional funding.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I believe you may be correct. Getting people killed doesn’t bother this lot, in fact I think they get a thrill out of it.

But if the reason they were allowed to die was to cover up an illegal transfer of arms paid for with U.S. tax money, that’s another thing entirely. Especially if (as I’ve come to suspect) ex-Libyan WMDs (chem/bio) were part of the package.

It’s entirely possible that Assad’s recent use of such may have been a mixed bag of ex-Iraqi materiel acquired via those “truck convoys” a decade ago, and munitions intended for the Syrian “resistance” (i.e., the local MB and AQ adherents)that Assad’s army intercepted.

Which raises another nasty possibility; what if, if the U.S. presses him too hard, Assad threatens to reveal where those chemical weapons he used came from? And who they were intended to be delivered to? And by whom?

The One might once more be forcibly reminded of the old axiom about there being no honor among thieves. Or, for that matter, dictators and wannabee tyrants.

/just a thought

clear ether

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Best odds, I’d say it’s because therein we will find an Iran-Contra impeachable misappropriation of Congressional funding.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

That’s my bet too. There’s plenty of bad behavior involved, but the most damaging is probably the arms shipments.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Summary:
1) The White House tried to use Tapper to spin things in their favor. He fell for it.
2) Karl and Hayes, said “Not so fast. Looks like we have more info than you. Our story makes more sense.”
3) Tapper realizes he’s been played, demands accountability from White House.

Did I get that right? If so, what a clusterf**k. These people are setting new records in incompetence and arrogance.

Chris of Rights on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Yep. But if you want to get nit-picky, Stephen Hayes has been the one out front and calling for the chain of emails to be released before all this. He’s getting back-up now from Karl and Tapper.

Thanks! I need a score card.

esr1951 on May 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I need an aspirin. Hourly.

lynncgb on May 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Of all the scandals, Benghazi seems the simplest to prove they are a bunch of incompetent boobs.

The IRS scandal proves that there is simply deep seated hatred of conservative groups by “civil servants”.

But America needs a name they can latch onto for all these scandals, what is it? Or does each one get their own -gate?

kirkill on May 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM

In other words, someone selectively leaked limited information that deliberately tried to distract from the real story.

And our beloved Greg Sargent at Wapo was all over it with this spin. Yet even his “followers” weren’t buying it.

Rovin on May 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM

But if the reason they were allowed to die was to cover up an illegal transfer of arms paid for with U.S. tax money, that’s another thing entirely. Especially if (as I’ve come to suspect) ex-Libyan WMDs (chem/bio) were part of the package.

It’s entirely possible that Assad’s recent use of such may have been a mixed bag of ex-Iraqi materiel acquired via those “truck convoys” a decade ago, and munitions intended for the Syrian “resistance” (i.e., the local MB and AQ adherents)that Assad’s army intercepted.

eon on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Word.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Politico still reporting the initial report…anything to defend this admin

cmsinaz on May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I call it PolitiHO, because they are whores for the REB.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 9:58 AM

But America needs a name they can latch onto for all these scandals, what is it? Or does each one get their own -gate?

kirkill on May 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Or, how about verb or phrase like ‘being borked’?

“Man, the government is trying to benghazi this story!”

Liam on May 15, 2013 at 9:58 AM

When do we start arresting Democrats?

I’ll bring the board, you bring the water!

Akzed on May 15, 2013 at 9:59 AM

***UPDATE: NBC’s senior White House correspondent joined the chorus Wednesday. On his MSNBC show, “The Daily Rundown,” Chuck Todd looked into the camera and said, “Attention White House: Release all the emails.” The headline has been updated to add NBC.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Shouldn’t it say: “Release the emails to NBC only and we’ll doctor them just like the Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman tapes.” ?

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Yep. But if you want to get nit-picky, Stephen Hayes has been the one out front and calling for the chain of emails to be released before all this. He’s getting back-up now from Karl and Tapper.

lynncgb on May 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Thanks. I did know that about Hayes, was really just referring to the events of the last 24 hours or so. But your point is good. Maybe I’ll write a short summary of the last week, too.

Sadly, I’m not sure I have time to do that for all the scandals, unless Ed puts me on staff. ;-)

Chris of Rights on May 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Poor Tapper my left foot. The press has been lap dogs for the regime since BHO gave that convention speech. Now that the regime has started kicking the lapdogs around, the howling begins.

Kissmygrits on May 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM

heh. Tapper and Karl played against each other. DoJ taking AP’s phone records.

This administration. Sheesh, it’s like cheating on your mistress!

socalcon on May 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM

We know more now, than we did about Watergate until years later and that brought Nixon down (as well it should have by the way). And yet teh won will skate. I feel it in my bones. Scott free.

WitchDoctor on May 15, 2013 at 10:06 AM

THIS COULD BE EFFING HUGE: What did the national security briefings Romney received say about Benghazi? [UPDATED] from The Astute Bloggers, via Doug Ross @ Journal

RedRedRice on May 15, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Welcome to the “Fundamental transformation of America”, useful idiots!

mel23059 on May 15, 2013 at 10:09 AM

The White House is playing a dangerous game with their own supporters. Playing Tapper, grabbing phone records from the AP. Why in the world are they poking the eyes of their public relations arm? This is like the overbearing employer who, despite having a loyal and productive employee base, installs spyware and cameras in the place of business to monitor those employees and than starts trashing them in public. Pretty soon those loyal and motivated employees are no longer so loyal nor motivated.

Why do this? The presstitutes have been loyal and staunch supporters of Jugears and his regime? That’s the part I don’t get in this whole scheme.

AZfederalist on May 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM

But America needs a name they can latch onto for all these scandals, what is it? Or does each one get their own -gate?

kirkill on May 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Or, how about verb or phrase like ‘being borked’?

“Man, the government is trying to benghazi this story!”

Liam on May 15, 2013 at 9:58 AM

I’d prefer “O-gate”, putting the blame where it belongs. (In spite of His “golfer” image, nobody does anything in the administration without “Mr. Micro-focus” Ok’ing it first.) But some people, notably Beck, say that’s too invidious, being too personal.

How about “Teascam” for the IRS, as per “Abscam” in Carter’s regime’? Remember, Abscam was intended to lure GOP representatives into a sting with phony Saudi bribers- but only one GOPer took the bait, the rest were all “progressive” Democrats.

Benghazi would best be called just that. No other term is as sharply descriptive. And there’s a tradition in that region for naming such events after the place they happened- think of the WW2 battles in North Africa. (In this context, Kasserine Pass comes to mind.)

As for the EPA side, EPA itself is a scandal. It doesn’t really need another name.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

This White House is not used to dealing with pointed questions from the press.

GarandFan on May 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Jim Treacher ‏@jtLOL 3m
No hard feelings, @jaketapper. If you got played on #Benghazi, which is starting to look like the case, you have every right to be angry.

Leaking the spoon-fed news……one scandal at a time.

Rovin on May 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

The One might once more be forcibly reminded of the old axiom about there being no honor among thieves. Or, for that matter, dictators and wannabee tyrants.

Something like the “code” of the Pirates of the Caribbean? Which can be “amended” when someone is on the end of a plank over shark-infested waters?

Steve Z on May 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Why do this? The presstitutes have been loyal and staunch supporters of Jugears and his regime? That’s the part I don’t get in this whole scheme.

AZfederalist on May 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The same reason Stalin got rid of everyone even remotely a threat to him or critical of his regime, because having and keeping power knows no bounds. Bark sent his message: “Even you press whores can find yourselves on the gallows if you cross me.”

Bishop on May 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Boehner on IRS: “My question isn’t about who’s going to resign, my question is, who is going to jail”

Rovin on May 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Boehner on IRS: “My question isn’t about who’s going to resign, my question is, who is going to jail”

Rovin on May 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Whoa! Did Boehner go to his closet and finally find his spine? … and maybe a pair of spherical orbs?

AZfederalist on May 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Axelrod said, “I think they would benefit from getting all these emails out in public.”

In other words, warm up the paper shredders for the most sensitive emails. Then release what’s left.

Liam on May 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Why do this? The presstitutes have been loyal and staunch supporters of Jugears and his regime? That’s the part I don’t get in this whole scheme.

AZfederalist on May 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Take egotistical narcissism, add megalomania, and season with a dash of paranoia.

One of the hallmarks of the sort of mental disorder this ruler has is that even when someone is fully on his side, he doesn’t believe that they will stay that way. Largely because of His penchant for using, discarding, and/or double-crossing others. He believes everyone else is as amoral and dishonest as he is. In short, even those who have openly declared for him cannot be trusted.

It’s practically the hallmark of dictators throughout history. Look up the track records of Robespierre and Marat sometime. Almost half the victims they sent to the guillotine were Jacobins like themselves, whom they suspected of “counter-revolutionary thought”- or of just having too much ambition. In the end, Robespierre got it in the neck from his own comrades, who concluded that they were next on the list. Marat was stuck in the bath by a relative of one of his previous victims. Who was otherwise a loyal revolutionary.

When this regime’ goes down, it is as likely to be from internal schism as external application of the rule of law.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM

The One might once more be forcibly reminded of the old axiom about there being no honor among thieves. Or, for that matter, dictators and wannabee tyrants.

Something like the “code” of the Pirates of the Caribbean? Which can be “amended” when someone is on the end of a plank over shark-infested waters?

Steve Z on May 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Bingo. Which by the way was the most realistic thing about those movies, as Capt. Jack Sparrow (plus the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride)was based on Bartholomew Roberts, a notable b*****d even among the “Fraternity of the Coast”.

The real Roberts would have eaten either of his fictional doppelgangers for breakfast, raw, and picked his teeth with their ribs. When the Royal Navy took him out in February 1722, the COD was a 16-pounder cannonball that removed his head during a gunnery engagement between the 50-gun Fourth Rate HMS Swallow and Robert’s 24-gun Royal Fortune. Most accounts write it off as “s**t happens in a battle”.

I’ve always personally suspected that the Royal Navy just didn’t believe in taking chances with the crazy son-of-a-B.

cheers

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails

Classic Axelrod. Say one thing, do another.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM

OBAMAGATE!!!

Attach his name to scandal.

PappyD61 on May 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Oh what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.

Mama was right

neyney on May 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I imagine off all their scandals, the WH is most afraid of Benghazi.

petefrt on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM

I damn sure hope so, good, decent Americans died.

JusDreamin on May 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Whatever you may think of Jake Tapper, I believe he is good and pissed that the WH duped him. Think he was a thorn before? Look out!
Huge mistake to tick off the media.

JusDreamin on May 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM

OBAMAGATE!!!

Attach his name to scandal.

PappyD61 on May 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM

It’s short and descriptive. It also places the blame where it belongs.

If not for the hotel, Watergate would have almost certainly been called “Nixon’s Self-Created Seventh Crisis”, as per his book Six Crises.

The funny thing is, anyone who had ever read that book, as my mother did, would have probably submitted to being forced to crawl buck-naked across a firewalking pit- very slowly- rather than vote for Tricky Dick for dogcatcher, let alone POTUS.

She voted for Humphrey in ’68, and she was a registered Republican. She voted “None of the Above” in ’72, because as she put it, no matter who won, the American people would be the real losers.

cheers

eon

eon on May 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The thing about an individual or group of individuals being a lying, cheating, conniving, chiseling, calculated manipulator is that once people recognize said individual or group of individuals as such…no one in their right mind is going to take that individual or group of individuals word for anything again, nor are they going to accept any evidence that individual or group of individuals were forced to render up at face value since, given the fact that the individual or group of individuals have already been caught lying, obfuscating, conniving, chiseling, and engaging in calculated manipulation of evidence or potential evidence, one necessarily must assume that anything presented has been ‘adjusted’ to reflect the narrative the individual or group of individual desperately needs to present, and much more evidence may yet remain hidden.

We’ve reached the point on Benghazi, and the IRS scandal, and the calculated cover ups and shifting of blame, when it is necessary and prudent not only for congress to move to sift through the evidence and take testimony, but to appoint an independent investigator.

thatsafactjack on May 15, 2013 at 10:55 AM

So this is starting to remind me of the Birth certificate thing. Trump threatens and just like magic obama releases his BC and all is well with the World! Are we being set up again ?

sandee on May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Urban Dictionary should have a picture of Carney included with the “Crap Weasel” entry.

connertown on May 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM

If there are e-mails that have not been released, whose release is now being debated, there is the there that is supposedly not there.

Looters don’t loot empty stores. Bank robbers don’t rob empty banks. Politicians don’t go to war over documents that don’t matter.

IndieDogg on May 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Its a great weelk to be a conservative small government believer. ALL of our warnings and fears are being shown to be correct daily.

nothing like having 100% verifcation and vindication

liberal progessives once again are proven 100% wrong on government being a “good thing”

unseen on May 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM

They fear Benghazi more than all the rest…who knows why. It must go all the way to the top and Dear Leader feels vulnerable. Maybe someone he doesn’t trust knows the story.

d1carter on May 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Boehner on IRS: “My question isn’t about who’s going to resign, my question is, who is going to jail”

Rovin on May 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Rovin:Tru Dat:)

House Speaker Boehner on IRS: ‘My question isn’t about who’s going to resign, my question is, who is going to jail’ – @jamiedupree

58 mins ago by editor

canopfor on May 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I don’t know how but I think the Bamster is going to skate too.
Benghazi being the most heartless and criminal of all. I would love to know if it was arms or a kidnapping or both, my bet is both.
Regardless, the book and movie “Obama” is going to be a several volume whopper. I hope someone has the balls to write it.

ORconservative on May 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Release the e-mails from the low-level staffers!!!

They’re the ones that seem to be running the show over there.

PackerBronco on May 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails (that are left)

How many emails went by private non-government accounts?

crosspatch on May 15, 2013 at 1:07 PM

carney is just a puppet for obama..if carneys nose is long, what must obamas look like…..

crosshugger on May 15, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Please tell me, if we had no military assets available to stop the attack that lasted over 8 hours, why did we not ask the Libyans for military help? They were responsible for security at the embassy and it seems they more than anyone else could respond with some assistance in a short period of time. How about the police? Did not the President think of this?

Rodger on May 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM

It’s practically the hallmark of dictators throughout history. Look up the track records of Robespierre and Marat sometime. …

When this regime’ goes down, it is as likely to be from internal schism as external application of the rule of law.

eon on May 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM

After reading some more of the day’s posts, it will be interesting to see if this happens.

Are these 2 employees so committed to the cause that they will allow their lives to be ruined just to save Obama? They need to be identified and questioned.

Howcome on May 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM

AesopFan on May 15, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I just saw a promo on the History channel for an ep on America’s Book of Secrets with a guy claiming that Benghazi wasn’t really an embassy but a CIA op. So that makes abandoning them to the mob OK, right?

flataffect on May 15, 2013 at 6:31 PM

I just saw a promo on the History channel for an ep on America’s Book of Secrets with a guy claiming that Benghazi wasn’t really an embassy but a CIA op. So that makes abandoning them to the mob OK, right?

flataffect on May 15, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Hope Obama watches that special so he can figure out what the h happened in Benghazi.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Would they? Then why haven’t they already done so?

Because for 5 years now Obama has had a press that all too willingly swallowed everything he said with a “OK, nothing to see here, let’s move on.” Therefore, Obama does not believe he has anything to fear. And therefore, does not think there is anything to be gained by full disclosure.

I think also he and his inner circle are counting on this to fade away for the simple reason that Libya is oh, so long ago and far away. If the American public does not catch on to the fact that Islamic militants in Libya killed an American Ambassador and three stalwarts trying to protect that compound while Obama fiddled and Hillary diddled, that our effort to blame the video embarrassed us with a Libyan President who may otherwise have proven to be a good ally, and that the United States let an official emissary be killed with no visible signs of outrage to this day, they may be right.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 19, 2013 at 2:11 AM