So, that little insignificant episode of unruliness in Benghazi is back in the news. Didn’t Hillary already explain to everyone, that, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Ok, so an email finally leaked out by way of Freedom of Information request that proves that the Obamanation Administration knowingly, willingly and with a full forethought of malice, lied to the American people about what happened in Benghazi. Big deal, so what, it was like two years ago, and Obama had an election to win, so certain lies were necessary, and besides,it was like two years ago. It’s not like anyone died or…. errr, well, not anyone important anyway…
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the emails were a distraction from real issues.
“Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,” Pelosi said, according to CBS News. “Why aren’t we talking about something else?”
Ok Nancy, how about we talk about why you, Harry Reid and Erick Holder aren’t in prison on various and sundry corruption charges.
Former White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor went on Fox News on Thursday, and after host Bret Baier grilled him over the issue of the talking points used after the attack, he finally responded with “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
Throughout the exchange, Vietor, who seemed annoyed at the line of questioning, wasn’t really able to answer Baier on various questions, telling him he “believes so” or that he didn’t remember.
“You don’t remember?” Baier asked, to which Vietor responded, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process … we’re talking about the process of editing talking points. That’s what bureaucrats do all day long.”
Dude, like wake the fuck up, there is no statute of limitations on murder or treason.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last summer by Judicial Watch, the Obama administration last week released 41 documents related to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. An email from the deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, has received most of the attention. In it, Rhodes laid out four goals for Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who would be appearing on five Sunday talk shows 36 hours later. “To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy; To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
The Judicial Watch documents also included White House talking points for Rice, with possible questions and answers she might provide to meet the goals set out by Rhodes. These new White House talking points included a broad discussion of the Arab Spring and its challenges, as well as several specific references to the attacks in Benghazi—a mention of Ambassador Chris Stevens, a question on Benghazi intelligence, and a separate section under the header “Benghazi.”
The Rhodes email and new talking points went to many top Obama administration communications and political officials, including press secretary Jay Carney, communications director Dan Pfeiffer, and Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe.
At his press briefing April 30, Carney took a question about the new documents from ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Karl. “Jay, I guess you’re aware that Judicial Watch obtained an email from Ben Rhodes to staff members about the Benghazi attack.” Carney disputed Karl’s characterization—“That’s incorrect”—and followed with a jaw-dropping claim. “The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi. They were about the general situation in the Muslim world where you saw, as you may recall, protests.”
The email and the talking points—produced in response to a FOIA request for Benghazi-related documents and with multiple references to the attacks in Benghazi three days earlier—were not about Benghazi? This was too much even for a White House press corps that long ago dismissed Benghazi as a legitimate news story. Reporters who cover the White House might not know the details of the intelligence on alleged attacker Ali Harzi. And they might not understand the ties between Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Sharia Libya. But they know when they’re being misled.
In the weeks after the Benghazi attacks, Carney and other top administration officials went to great lengths to suggest that the Obama administration’s public response to the attacks was strictly based on assessments provided by the intelligence community. This was not true.
BRET BAIER: People on the ground testified that they knew where the ambassador was, that they were military in their precision. It was not guys coming to protest. They had mortars and heavy weapons.
TOMMY VIETOR: Bret, a couple of things. I was in the Situation Room that night, okay. We didn’t know where the ambassador was definitively.
BAIER: Was the president in the Situation Room?
VIETOR: No. And the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is a pattern of inaccurate —
BAIER: Where was the president?
VIETOR: In the White House. Let me finish my initial statement. The notion that we could, you know, divine motives from a drone feed I think is wrong. And I also think this idea that the military had the capability to rescue those individuals but chose not to is I think extremely unfair to the military. And Admiral Mullen said basically the opposite.
BAIER: In the ARB report.
BAIER: Where was the president?
VIETOR: In the White House.
BAIER: He wasn’t in the Situation Room?
VIETOR: At what point in the evening?
BAIER: Any point in the evening.
VIETOR: It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.
BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he’s where?
VIETOR: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.
BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.
VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.
Hmmm, hey Tommy, I’m thinking you should have stuck to, “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
House Republicans accused the Obama administration Thursday of “perhaps criminal” behavior for having withheld for months key email that sheds light on how the administration framed its post-Benghazi talking points, potentially violating a congressional subpoena.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Secretary of State John F. Kerry will have to come before Congress to explain why his department refused to release the email until forced to do so by a judge.
Meanwhile, a retired Air Force brigadier general who was in the U.S. Africa Command’s headquarters the night of the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi testified that he and others quickly realized the assault was spawned by terrorists. The general said it was either negligence or willful ignorance that led the White House, amid a re-election campaign, to say the violence was ignited by anger over a video.
Several high-profile Republican senators said the revelations, combined with questions still unanswered, should spur Congress to create an independent investigative committee to get the answers.
“If the White House won’t explain it, Secretary Kerry should come to the Capitol to explain why he defied an official congressional subpoena. And the White House needs to understand that this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served,” Mr. Boehner said.
Judicial Watch, a public interest law firm, obtained the email under an open-records request enforced by a court order. The email shows a top White House national security official shaping how U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice should talk about the attack on a round of Sunday political talk shows. The email said blame should be placed on an Internet video.
The White House dismissed the rekindled questions.
“This is a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy,” press secretary Jay Carney said.
But he altered his explanation from Wednesday, when he said the reason the email wasn’t turned over in response to requests was that it wasn’t about Benghazi. Instead, Mr. Carney said it was a State Department decision and Mr. Kerry’s department would have to provide the answers.
Mr. Carney did acknowledge Thursday that the email mentioned Benghazi once, in a question about how administration officials should respond to a report in a British newspaper that the U.S. ignored a warning 48 hours before the attack.
Mr. Carney said Republicans in Congress should drop the Benghazi investigation and instead focus on the economy. He also said the president is focused on finding the perpetrators who killed four Americans in Benghazi.
Yes, drop the Benghazi investigation because… somebody in the Whitehouse might end up going to prison.
The discovery, over a year after the September 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, of an e-mail from a White House political operative that shows him suggesting that former United Nations ambassador Susan Rice underscore that the attack was a reaction to an Internet video is, according to Charles Krauthammer, like the discovery of the Nixon tapes that blew open the Watergate scandal in 1973.
“It’s to me the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes,” Krauthammer said Thursday. “The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed, it was not organized. If they had appointed a special committee a long time ago the way it was done in Watergate, you would have had answers on this and the country would be tired.”
Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton got in an enormous amount of trouble over matters that were, honestly speaking, quiet minor. However, where they fell truly afoul of the law, was not the original scandal, but in attempting to cover the sandals up. The scandal that the Obamanation Administration is attempting to cover up, is not a minor misdemeanor breaking and entry, or even a sexual affair with an intern, it’s criminal level negligence. Unlike with either the Nixon or Clinton scandals, where no one died, four people died and the Obamanation Administration has lied and covered up what took place.
The real question now is this. In a nation where the President and the Attorney General are constantly accusing people of being racists, are we going to hold the Obamanation Administration to the same standards that we held Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton to, or are we going to hold Barack Obama to a completely different standard because he is Black, and if we do, would that not constitute the most egregious act of racism?