FormerAssistant United States Attorney and NRO and PJ Media contributor, Andrew McCarthy, appeared on The Kelly File,Thursday night to discuss the new Benghazi emails and give his reaction to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s deceptive performance Wednesday in the White House briefing room.
In Carney’s exchange with Jonathan Karl, he insisted that Rhodes’ email was not about Benghazi, arguing that the talking points were meant to cover what caused the protests outside other embassies in the Middle East (Khartoum, Tunis, and Cairo).
“Of all the insults to the intelligence that we’ve heard from the podium,” McCarthy said, “that one may be the worst one that we’ve heard over the past five or six years…”
He went on to point out that the whole reason for the talking points, was to prep Susan Rice for the Sunday talk shows where she was to talk about what? The Benghazi massacre. If not for the Benghazi attack, she would not have been appearing on those shows.
As for why Judicial Watch was able to get the docs, but Congress was not, he answered, “a lawyer can prosecute an actual case to try to get to the bottom of what actual happened – whereas 5 different congressional committees all coming at it from different angles are not equipped to do an actual criminal investigation. He couldn’t say why Boehner hasn’t called for Select Committee. “If he doesn’t do it now, it’s inexplicable,” he said.
MacCallum asked McCarthy what he thought about the phony YouTube video narrative; “you also claim that even Egypt didn’t have anything to do with the video.”
“The video is a fraud through and through,” McCarthy declared. “The video never had anything to do with Benghazi, and it’s unfortunate that people have accepted that it had something to do with Cairo. We knew before the Cairo Embassy – what they called protesting but was actually violent rioting – happened under circumstances where al Qaeda elements had been threatening the embassy for weeks to get the freedom of the guy I prosecuted in the nineties the Blind Sheikh – which was a big deal in Egypt. That was what was mainly going on in Egypt.”
“The video thing was a side show”, he explained. “The State Dept. put out these tweets to try to spin the trouble in Cairo as attributable to the video.”
The Andrew McCarthy interview begins 8:00 minutes in.
It is both interesting and telling that Carney would concede that the protests outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo were the result of the video. One thing that Carney will not and has not conceded is that CNN’s Nic Robertson was outside the Cairo embassy on the morning of the attack as protests were taking place. Those protests – which had been going on for several weeks – were about demanding the release of the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing – Omar Abdel Rahman (“the Blind Sheikh”), as we presented in EXHIBIT Z of our “Ironclad” Report:
Everything this Regime does it political spin and outright lies (even as they project that Republicans are the ones who politicize everything.)
That’s why no one should trust them on anything — be it domestic policy, or foreign policy. That’s why I haven’t posted much on the Ukraine. There is a lot of propaganda being thrown out there from all sides on the Ukraine situation – and a lot of it is coming from this untrustworthy Regime. Media stenographers uncritically parrot whatever this corrupt State Dept tells them and sometimes they don’t even have the correct facts. We’re only getting one side of the story and it’s a complicated story, and we can no longer trust our own government to tell us the truth. Spin is one thing – outright lies are another.
I’m afraid that getting to the bottom of Benghazi is going to take a Select Committee. And if we ever find out what really happened (there are various theories) we may well find that some House and Senate intel committee members were caught up in the scandal too.
Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) appeared on Fox News with Bill Hemmer, Wednesday to discuss the explosive, smoking gun documents that were released by Judicial Watch, yesterday.
Gowdy said that the documents only prove what we already suspected, that “the White House was preoccupied with spinning their policy more so than telling the people the truth.”
But the slightly agitated Gowdy continued, “but Bill, Congress didn’t get this email. And that’s the point that I would stress to you and your viewers. This email came because of a court action by a private entity.
After 20 months, Congress still doesn’t have all the emails, and apparently we’re not willing to do anything to force the administration to give us the emails.”
How many more emails are there like this? And are we going to have to wait another 20 months to get those?” a clearly frustrated Gowdy asked.
“But it’s been 20 months!” Gowdy later exclaimed, “And we didn’t even get this email! Congress is supposed to provide the oversight – not Judicial Watch!”
“You would hope that my colleagues in the House – particularly the leadership, would be so infuriated that a private entity is getting more information from this administration than we are, that we would actually start using the tools that we have at our disposal to compel the information being produced. If this email existed for 20 months and we just got it, what else exists that we don’t know about,” Gowdy concluded.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was spinning like a top at today’s press conference.
Obviously expecting to be asked about the new WH Benghazi emails produced by Judicial Watch, he had some brand new shiny spin for the Praetorians to use in defense of the Regime. And he recited the brand new spin with the bored air of someone who has patiently explained it to the duller reporters (like Jonathan Karl) “again and again.”
Karl wanted to know why the email was withheld for 20 months. “This is directly relevant, he said. “Why did you hold it back. Why did it take a court case for you to release this?”
“Jon,” an annoyed Carney answered. “I have said again and again, and I know you can keep asking me again and again. This document was not about Benghazi.”
Talk about moving the goalposts.
“It was her prep for the Sunday shows!” Karl exclaimed.
“It wasn’t her only prep for Benghazi,” Carney patiently explained. “She relied for answers on Benghazi on the document prepared by the CIA, as did members of Congress.”
He continued in that vein, refusing to answer the actual question, which was – why was the email withheld?
Watch it and weep for our country:
Needless to say to anyone who saw Susan Rice’s performances on those Sunday talk shows – she applied the YouTube video narrative to the Benghazi attack, repeatedly. So if it was some kind of gross misunderstanding, why was she given a promotion, rather than be fired for getting it all so profoundly wrong?
I didn’t watch the whole press conference, so I don’t know if anyone called Carney out on his past lies:
“It has been repeatedly said by some of the critics on this issue on the Hill that the White House provided talking points. That has been categorically refuted not just by us but by the intelligence community, and yet it’s still periodically said on the air. And it’s just wrong,” Carney lied in November of 2012.
In May of 2013, Carney lied, “the White House involvement in any changes that were made to the so-called talking points were extremely minimal and non-substantive.”
Now he’s reduced to ignoring questions about why it took so long to produce the email with the White House talking points, the existence of which he claimed, were “categorically refuted.”
SEE ALSO:
Washington Free Beacon has a longer clip of Karl’s questioning: Jon Karl vs. Jay Carney on Benghazi – 8 Minutes of Fury:
In an effort to spin the situation, Jay Carney claimed the talking points provided to Rice were about the numerous protests occurring in the Middle East and weren’t specifically about Benghazi.
“If you look at that document, that document that we’re talking about today was about the overall environment in the Muslim world — the protests outside of Khartoum — the embassy in Khartoum, outside of the embassy in Tunis, the protests outside of the embassy in Cairo. These were big stories. These were — this was a big problem. And this was an ongoing story through that weekend when Ambassador Rice appeared in the Sunday shows. So to suggest that we wouldn’t have answers to questions about those situations –and unless you’re telling me now that those protests didn’t have anything to do with the video, it was entirely appropriate to have a question-an-answer document prepared for the video,” Carney said in defense of the released emails.
“It did not come from the CIA. You stood there at the podium time after time and said that she was referring to talking points created by the CIA. Now we see a document that comes from the White House, not from the CIA, attributing the protests to the video, and we have the former director of the CIA saying that that was not something that his analysts had attributed it to,” Karl fired back.
“Spin” is a generous euphemism for the disgraceful deceptions this “public servant” spouts on a daily basis. Never forget – the White House Press Secretary works for the American people. He owes us the truth – and we are not getting it from him.
According to Judicial Watch, the Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”
Exit Quote: “If you look at the document in question, it is not about Benghazi.“
Second Exit Quote: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.“
Third Exit Quote: After a year and a half of vigorously insisting the White House had no input into these Talking Points — that all information came from the CIA and FBI — Carney now says “obviously” the White House had input into the Talking Points.
Previously –
In May of 2013, I took the time to review Jay Carney’s dishonest spin on Benghazi.
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.”
Jay was being a good soldier – literally reciting the White House talking points supplied to him by White House fixer, Ben Rhodes: “it is not a reaction to 9/11 or US policy.”
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.
***
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 bewrong, Carney sneered, clearly alluding to Fox News.
Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.
You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.
To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning
Simple, no?
It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?
Former Bush Press Sec. Dana Perino and Charles Lane of the Washington Post had far too much sympathy for Benjamin Rhodes, who they suggested was only acting on the orders of a superior. (Valerie Jarrett, one supposes.) I have no doubt that Rhodes, the entire communications team, and Susan Rice knew that they were disseminating lies. None of it was ever believable, but they got the media to pass it along to the masses with a degree of credibility it didn’t deserve – while attacking Mitt Romney for questioning it.
Pay special attention to the Jay Carney clip at the beginning of the segment. He was knowingly peddling lies about Benghazi and attacking Fox for spreading false information from day one. We now know he was in on the deception because the Rhodes email went to the entire WH communications team.
“It has been repeatedly said by some of the critics on this issue on the Hill that the White House provided talking points. That has been categorically refuted not just by us but by the intelligence community, and yet it’s still periodically said on the air. And it’s just wrong,” Carney lied in November of 2012.
In May of 2013, Carney lied, “the White House involvement in any changes that were made to the so-called talking points were extremely minimal and non-substantive.”
This man has earned – more than any other WH Press Secretary in American history – the moniker given to him by Darrell Issa – Obama’s “Paid Liar.” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t know how the man can stand looking at himself in the mirror every day.
But he’s only following the lead of the Liar-In Chief: “The whole issue of talking points throughout this whole process has frankly been a sideshow,” Obama lied in May of 2013. Liars like Obama use the word “frankly” to mean – “I’m not even be remotely transparent, here.”
The documents released by Judicial Watch are smoking gun proof that these public servants knowingly lied to the American people about a national security issue to cover their own corrupt behinds. If this isn’t an impeachable offense – I don’t know what is.
Charles Krauthammer said, “I find the most scandalous element of this – from purely just a human point of view, is the fact that the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – with the bodies of the dead lying in front of her, and with the families there, brought up the video – a video in which we had nothing to do…. and then according to one of the family members, when she went over to console that family member and said, that we were going to get the guy who made the video. Now that to me – if she knew that was a phony story – and I’m not sure I understand how it could be otherwise – is a form of deception that I think is truly scandalous.”
…It’s well to remember at this point who Ben Rhodes is. According to the White House, he is assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and speechwriting. That sounds nice, but he has no career in the military or intelligence. Rhodes is a career partisan Democrat and Obama loyalist who was put on the National Security Council because he is a loyalist to the man. Not the nation. Or the facts on the ground in Libya or anywhere else. Rhodes’ loyalty belongs to Barack Obama.
He needs to be compelled to testify under oath about all this.
Yes, and contrary to popular belief *cough* Charles Krauthammer *cough* – the Benghazi issue is not dead. The clock is still ticking… and Hillary’s 2016 run for the White House is in grave peril. Democrats may have to make due with Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren.
The levels of criminality involved in this are mind-boggling. Everyone from Ben Rhodes to Hillary Clinton to Jay Carney to Susan Rice to Mike Morell to Barack Obama and on and on must explain themselves minute-by-minute. American “liberals” and their media consorts should search their souls. People died here…
…Anyone who now considers Benghazi a “fake scandal” is a either a complete liar or a moron. This new release of emails thanks to Judicial Watch is literally a call to arms. We will now see if there is even a figment of honesty in our mainstream media and if our elected representatives are to be trusted in any way.
It is our duty as citizens to put as pressure on those representatives as possible to carry through this investigation to its natural conclusion — impeachment.
In light of this discovery, will the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, finally name a Select Committee on Benghazi?
Will Darrell “Inspector Clouseau” Issa explain why a watchdog group like Judicial Watch — and not his unfocused and possibly incompetent Oversight Committee — is doing all of the heavy lifting in this investigation?
Will the media finally admit that they are co-conspirators in the cover-up?
Accuracy in Media and the CCB held a press briefing on Tuesday, April 22nd at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to release and discuss the Interim Report. Attendees included CNN, The Daily Mail, Fox News, The Washington Free Beacon, World Magazine, WorldNetDaily, and The Daily Caller.
The key findings in the report include that
Muammar Qaddafi expressed his willingness to abdicate shortly after the beginning of the 2011 Libyan revolt, but the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce, which led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans), chaos, and detrimental outcomes for U.S. national security objectives across the region.
The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.
On the day of the attacks in Benghazi, whether or not there was an official order to stand down, the result was the same. There were military assets, for example, at the U.S. base in Sigonella, in Sicily, Italy that could have been brought to bear, and perhaps could have saved the lives of the two men killed at the CIA Annex, the scene of the second attack that night. The failure to attempt to rescue these Americans amounts to a dereliction of duty.
Previous investigations have been ineffective as the cover-up of Benghazi continues at all levels of government, prompting the need for a Select Committee with the power of subpoena to investigate this tragedy and compel testimony under oath outside the five-minute rule imposed on Congressional members by the current investigative structure.
America needs Congress to form a Select Committee to uncover the facts about Benghazi that remain unavailable to the public, and are obscured by the five-minute rule imposed upon Members of Congress.
Changed classification?
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told me today that the government apparently tried to keep the Rhodes email out of Congress and the public’s hands by classifying it after-the-fact.
“They retroactively changed the classification,” Chaffetz says. “That was an unclassified document and they changed it to classified.”
In the past month, the government has supplied 3,200 new Benghazi-related documents under Congressional subpoena. In some instances, Congressional members and their staff are only permitted to see the documents during certain time periods in a review room, and cannot remove them or make copies.
Chaffetz says that the State Department redacted more material on the copies provided to Congress than on those that it was forced to provide to JudicialWatch.
One of the most heavily-redacted email exchanges is entitled, “FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm.” The Fox News article was circulated among dozens of officials including Rhodes and then-Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough but the content of their email discussion is hidden.
“Topline Points”
An internal document provided by the State Department dated Sept. 14, 2012 is titled, “Topline Points” and poses answers to a series of questions apparently in preparation for the briefing to be provided to Ambassador Rice prior to her talk show appearances. The document fails to mention terrorism, although it had been repeated throughout the early versions of the talking points, and many government officials have said that they had already concluded by that time that terrorism was to blame.
“What’s your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored?” is one question posed in the briefing memo. The suggested answer: “This story is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission was planned or imminent. We also see indications that this action was related to the video that has sparked protests in other countries.”
But the final sentence to the answer is expanded and developed in the “PREP CALL with Susan” email from Rhodes at 8:09pm on Friday, September 14, 2012. It adds the phrase “spontaneously inspired” and also refers to the attack as “demonstrations” that “evolved.”
“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex,” reads the Friday night email from Rhodes to White House press officials.
Obama administration officials have insisted they were acting on “the best intelligence available at the time” and that they clarified the story as they got more information.
But taken as a whole, the documents and testimony revealed since the attacks support the idea that the administration’s avoidance of the word “terrorism” was a strategy rather than an accident or mistake.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge reported on some new developments via Judicial Watch in the investigation into the Sept. 2012 Benghazi attack, including the release of documents that lead directly to the White House.
You will be not surprised to find that White House “fixer” Ben Rhodeswrote the memo emphasizing the importance of the youtube video to Obama’s paid hacks, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe to disseminate to the public. In other words, the entire White House communications staff – public servants who work for the American people – provided political cover to the Regime during an election year, rather than provide the best information they had on an issue of great national importance, to the American public.
Under the subject “prep call with Susan,” Rhodes wrote that the goal for Rice’s appearances on Sunday talk shows would be “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
The message was sent three days after the attacks, which left four Americans dead at a U.S. consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.
Days later, Rice would go on numerous Sunday news programs, including on Fox News Sunday, to falsely assert that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous and occurred during a protest over an anti-Islam video. Since that time, the White House has come under fierce criticism from Republicans, who allege that the administration altered the CIA’s talking points about how the Benghazi attack unfolded.
We now know that the attacks had nothing to do with the video, and everything to do with the Regime’s failure to secure and defend the compound in Benghazi.
These people are disgusting.
You have to wonder – was it worth it to the Regime to invent the YouTube story? – Since so many of us knew it was BS from the start, and it’s just one more scandal to add to the their impressive list of scandals? But then – when I say “so many of us” I’m not talking about the public, at large, am I? The MSM went to bat for the Regime in the wake of the Benghazi attack – in many cases acting like unpaid members of Obama’s communication team (Candy Crowley comes to mind.) In the end, it would seem that the lies helped Obama limp across the finish line because most people believed the lies that the White House and the media disseminated.
President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, said on Sunday she was not “100 percent correct” in her remarks after the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Libya, but called it patently false to say she intentionally misled Americans about the incident.
Republican critics were not satisfied with her explanation, with Senator John McCain proclaiming himself “almost speechless.”
On Sept. 11, 2012, an attack by militants killed four Americans at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, including American Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Just days later, Rice appeared on news shows and stated that the attack was the work of a spontaneous crowd, instead of Islamic militants.
When Rice’s 2012 account proved incorrect, Republican lawmakers accused her of trying to protect Obama during his re-election campaign, which the White House disputed.
Appearing on the NBC program “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Rice said, “I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning (and) was provided to me and my colleagues – and indeed to Congress – by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”
“And that information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false,” she added.
Rice said she did not have any regrets about the 2012 comments. She also said the United States remains committed to catching the perpetrators of the attack. “And we will stay on it until this gets done,” she added.
Does it make you rest easy at night knowing that this woman is the president’s National Security Advisor?
Nice Deb 