Why does the man still have any credibility?
The Washington Times reported:
White House spokesman Jay Carney cautioned that he could not immediately respond to live testimony from the committee but went on to say that the administration remained unsure of the identity and affiliations of the attackers, noting that Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for it on Twitter but then later recanted.
“What I can tell you is that it was the assessment of our intelligence community that the attacks were participated in by extremists,” he told reporters at a regular daily briefing. “That’s what I’ve said. That’s what Ambassador Rice said. She said on that Sunday that extremists were involved. What we didn’t know is what their exact affiliation was.”
“As you know, with regard to this group, there was a claim of responsibility, then there was a disowning of responsibility. So anybody who pretends to have known all the facts instantly is just mistaken,” he continued. “And it is always the case that things like this require careful investigation.”
Of course, that didn’t stop Jay, or his boss, or Hillary from making some very definitive statements about Benghazi for days and weeks after the attack.
On September 14, Jake Tapper asked Carney if the anniversary of September 11 might have been a good time to have extra security around diplomat and military posts.
After assuring us that they are always very vigilant on anniversaries like 9/11 (no they’re not), Jay said, but “let’s be clear….these protests were in reaction to a VIDEO that had spread to the region….”
Jake: “In Benghazi?”
Jay: “We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” (Yes they had) “The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that many Muslims find offensive, and while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified it is not a reaction to 9/11 or US policy.”
More Jay from Sept. 14 repeating the youtube video drumbeat, “the unrest in the region has been in response to this video”. …”the cause of the unrest was a video…”
Reading from his script, he said “We reject its contents, we find it both disgusting and reprehensible/ America has a history of religious tolerance and has respect for religious beliefs, and that respect goes back to our nation’s founding.”
Jay Carney on Sept. 19, argued that they didn’t have evidence that it was a pre-planned attack. “Bad actors” had come on the scene of a protest armed with RPGs and mortars. “We prefer to have an investigation…”
The reporter, clearly not buying it, said, “so a random crowd that had come together with their heavy weapons – got insulted by the film, and decided to – you know – blow up…”
Carney doubled down with, “there has certainly been precedent in the past where bad actors – extremists who are heavily armed who have exploited situations that have developed in order to attack Americans…”
This is the 19th of September now, mind you, and he’s refusing to admit the obvious because that would reflect badly on the regime.
Jay Carney October 10, 2012: Benghazi Terror Attack: Jake Tapper Presses Jay Carney on WH Misstatements on Consulate Attack:
Note how everything that they knew the night of the attack was “still under investigation”. Note also how much faith Carney was putting into the Regime’s ringer “Accountability Review Board” that was looking into the attacks.
“Given the fact, that so much was made of the video, that apparently had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi, there wasn’t even a protest, didn’t President Obama shoot from the hip?” Jake Tapper asked.
Carney responded that it was a moving picture, and some people were trying to politicize a situation that shouldn’t be politicized.
“There was a lot of talk about the video….” Jake persisted.
On November 9, 2012, Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney if and when the White House was going to put out a detailed “tick-tock” surrounding its response to the Benghazi attacks.
Note, Jake asked a specific question about Obama’s actions and whereabouts on 9/11 and Carney launches into a long, defensive answer about “the investigation” that was taking place.
Carney fell back on the Regime’s boilerplate: “Nobody is more interested than the president in making sure the facts are collected, we find out exactly what happened, that we bring to justice those who killed 4 Americans and that we take measures to ensure that what happened in Benghazi does not happen again.”
“We’re never going to get a tick tock” complains one of the reporters.
“That’s not at all what I said”, Carney huffed.
Dec. 20, Carney Gets Testy Over Benghazi Questions:
Here, Carney took a question from Fox News’ Ed Henry, and got huffy at the idea that anyone higher up than a few low level State Department flacks should be held responsible. “What are you suggesting, Ed, Carney demanded, the disgust and contempt dripping from his voice. Based on the holy Gospel according to the ACB report, some reporting turned out to be wrong, Carney sneered, clearly alluding to Fox News.
As Keith Koffler noted at White House Dossier, yesterday “there is no mention in the report of the what Clinton or Obama did related to Benghazi.”
In fact, Obama isn’t mentioned at all in the document, and Clinton only once – in the context of her appointing the Review Board. There is no suggestion that Clinton or Obama were interviewed or even examined by the investigation.
What’s more, Accountability Review Boards are part of statutory State Department process that is not legally permitted to investigate the president.
It’s not even clear that an Accountability Review Board is permitted to probe the Secretary of State. The purview of a Review Board covers “employees” of the State Department who could be subject to discipline by the Secretary of State, who presumably would not be tasked to discipline herself.
Yet Carney Wednesday suggested the Review Board report exculpated Clinton.
From the briefing:
Q So the White House is confident that Hillary Clinton acted appropriately throughout this process?
MR. CARNEY: We are. And I think I would point you to the Accountability Review Board and what –
Q Which didn’t –
MR. CARNEY: I think I would point you to the report the put out. I would point you to what the two heads of that board, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen — each highly praised by both sides of the aisle for their long, distinguished careers — put out in a statement this week: “From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything, including all of the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that is what we did.”
Again, this is an unsparing report done by two career professionals, nonpartisan career professionals, that contain within it very serious recommendations, found shortcomings that needed to be corrected, and the State Department acted immediately on that.
Apparently that answer satisfied the reporters in the room. Koffler reports there was no follow up question.