For Some Reason, The White House Refuses To Release Photos Taken of WH Officials During 9/11 Benghazi Attacks

Interesting. On Oct.31, CBS News requested images of US officials taken in the White House on 9/11 and those requests have been denied by the White House Photo Office. As the always stellar Sharyl Attkisson  notes, Obama stated during his  press conference on Nov. 14,  that his Administration has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”

Uh huh:

In the past, the White House has released photos showing US officials during national security incidents. A half dozen images related to the mission that captured and killed Osama bin Laden were given to the public last year. One depicts President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team gathered in the Situation Room on May 1, 2011.

Think there’ll be any photos from the situation room on 9/11/2012 of Obama officials watching US citizens in Benghazi  getting slaughtered in real time, and doing nothing about it?

A White House official referred our request regarding the Benghazi attacks to the White House Photo Office. On Nov. 1, an official there indicated she would process our request quickly, but then did not respond further. Finally, this week, the White House Photo Office told CBS News it would not release any images without approval of Josh Earnest in the White House Press Office. Earnest did not respond to our telephone calls and emails.

At a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 President Obama stated that his Administration has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”

“We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information…,” the President told reporters, adding, “we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day…” and “I will put forward every bit of information that we have.”

CBS News has also requested details about the President and his staff’s decisions during the attacks, but have been rebuffed on those requests, as well.

Probably because Obama feels like he’s provided enough details, already, as typified by this response given to another stellar reporter (one of the few left), KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke who asked Obama about possible denials of requests for aid in an interview in Denver, last month:

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

Again, Sharyl notes the difference between this situation and last year, when “reporters were given details of the decision making, timeline and players regarding the Osama bin Laden raid as well as access to certain emails.”


Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Who Pushed the Spontaneous YouTube Protest Narrative? All Roads Lead to the White House

As far as Democrats are concerned, BenghaziGate is no scandal, and all questions regarding what happened on 9/11/12 have been adequately addressed. This stance is exemplified by one of the Regime’s chief water carriers, Adam Schiff, who maintains  that the changes to Benghazi talking points were made by intel community,and that’s that. We should accept these facts and “move on.”

Former CIA Director Petraeus told lawmakers last Friday there were multiple streams of intelligence, some that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. But other intelligence indicated the violence at the Benghazi mission was inspired by protests in Egypt over the anti Muslim video.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

“Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn’t done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn’t. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we’re going to have to accept them as they are and move on,” Schiff said.

Via Fox News:

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News the timeline reinforces his view the changes were driven by security considerations, not politics.

“To anyone who was listening, it was clear from General Petraeus and other intelligence officials who testified last week that the talking points were amended to protect classified sources of information and were not subject to any political spin by the White House or ambassador to the U.N.,” Schiff said.

Schiff is a piece of work. The last time I saw the former prosecutor, he was shamelessly spinning the facts in the Fast and Furious scandal in an attempt to protect the regime during Holder’s Contempt hearing.

Nothing is in fact clear in Benghazigate, because the stories keep changing. And the idea that the talking points were amended from a terrorist attack to a spontaneous protest “to protect sources” doesn’t pass the laugh test. What a maroon.

As David Petraeus reportedly told Congress last Friday,  the original CIA talking points given to Susan Rice linked the Benghazi attack to terrorism, but that part was edited out by unknown officials before distribution. The question remains, who edited the talking points, and why?

A congressional source familiar with the testimony delivered Thursday by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says that, in his testimony, Clapper was insistent that he did not alter the Benghazi talking points to remove references to al-Qaeda or terrorism. That raises questions about the latest CBS news report indicating that the talking points were edited in Clapper’s office


Chambliss told Chris Wallace that, in Thursday’s hearings, “every leader” in the intelligence community was asked if he knew who changed the talking points. Nobody knew. “The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there,” Chambliss said, “was the White House.”
 All roads still lead to the White House.

Benghazi Libya Fallout – Special Report Panel Weighs In:

via Massteaparty


Those who think Suzy Rice is nothing more than a hapless incompetent could not be more wrong as these posts from Big Government and Gateway Pundit demonstrate:

From Rwanda to Benghazi, Susan Rice’s Record of Political Cronyism:

Many people on both sides of the political spectrum are well aware of Ms. Rice’s history of political cronyism and her tactic of twisting truth to protect the political fortunes of the administrations in which she has served. While Congressional Democrats have sought to portray the investigation into Ms. Rice’s role in the Benghazi cover-up as a witch hunt based on racism and sexism, some of these same Democrats have had their own concerns about Ms. Rice’s cronyism in the past.

In a quote for a 2002 book written by Samantha Power, Ms. Rice stated, in her attempted defense of the Clinton Administration’s inaction in response to the genocide that was taking place in the tiny African Nation of Rwanda in 1994, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?” It was later revealed that President Clinton, along with Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, Warren Christopher, and Ms. Rice were all part of a coordinated effort not only to block U.N. action to stop the genocide, but to work behind the scenes to craft public opinion on the issue by removing words such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from official State Department and CIA memos.

In 1997, when President Clinton sought to promote Ms. Rice to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the appointment based on her history of being part of the Washington Elite Class. This is the same Congressional Black Caucus who is now in 2012 attempting to defend her with trumped up charges of racism and sexism. Even as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, many inside and outside of Washington questioned Ms. Rice’s tenure, as she worked with certain African dictators with questionable records, reaping praise herself for doing so.

A History of Ineptitude… Susan Rice Thwarted Attempts to Capture Bin Laden – Was Bystander to Rwandan Genocide:

Black Is Right discovered this in a CNN article published in 2008.


Terrorism experts blame Rice for having played a key role in blocking efforts to neutralize Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.

According to Mansoor Ijaz, a former trouble shooter for Clinton, the FBI had their efforts to capture bin Laden “overruled every single time by the State Department, by Susan Rice and her cronies, who were hell-bent on destroying the Sudan.” In a Washington Post Op-Ed published in 2002, Mansoor Ijaz and Tim Carney, U.S. Ambassador to Sudan blamed Susan Rice for being a major obstacle to accepting offers of help from Sudan and to share their intelligence on bin Laden’s terror network.