As Republicans try to get to the bottom of who provided the bogus talking points to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, the White House continues to dissimulate.
In a his snippy response to a question from Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney claimed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether he or Susan Rice called the terrorists (whom he called “extremists”) “al Qaeda” or not, as if that was an answer to what the question was.
Hey Carney. Who told you and Rice to go out and tell the American people that the “best intelligence” showed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video?
Why did you and Rice persist in disseminating the misleading information to the American people for many days after the truth was known?
Why didn’t Susan Rice come forward sooner to admit she was wrong?
Why was the real cause of the attack (al Qaeda tied terrorism) omitted from the talking points?
What was His Highness doing on the night of the attack? Did he watch any of it as it was being streamed live in the Situation Room, or would that have interfered too much with his beauty sleep?
Who told the hapless Rice that al Qaeda had been decimated?
As the President is considering her for his next Secretary of State, that last question should especially concern him — because she sounded pretty stupid out there when she said it.
One more question for reporters: Why do you guys allow Carney to brush you off like that? Why don’t you follow up by demanding the truth instead of feebly accepting the Regime’s standard B.S. day after day?
Yesterday, Carney tried to discourage BenghaziGate questions by telling reporters, “There Are No Unanswered Questions” about Rice’s Appearances on Sunday Shows.
JAY CARNEY (11/27/2012): As the president made clear, Ambassador Rice has no responsibility for collecting, analyzing and providing intelligence, nor does she have responsibility as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations for diplomatic security around the globe.
Then why was she chosen to be the face of the administration on the issue, that Sunday, when clearly, there were other officials in the Regime who could have provided more accurate information (if given leave to).
And do you know why Republicans are so “obsessed” with Rice’s comments? Because it was obvious from day one that the ludicrous narrative she was peddling was meant to be a political cover story for the Regime. The question is, what were/are they covering up?
Of course he does.
Hat tip: Weasel Zippers
Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!