April 29, 2014

"Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role..."

"... in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video."
The email [from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications] lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

80 comments:

Sorun said...

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

To reinforce something you need at least a base there to begin with.

J Lee said...

Ben's both assistant to the president and the brother of David Rhodes, CBS News president.

Since one of the reasons Sharyl Attkisson gave for quitting CBS News was the network's higher-ups blocking her efforts to get any Benghazi stories on the air, the questions to ask both brothers pretty much write themselves (though to be fair, NBC and ABC didn't need to have a corporate family connection to not investigate Benghazi).

Tyrone Slothrop said...

It is time for Obama to resign.

AJ Lynch said...

Professor: wanna bet you won't find a NYT or WAPO story about this for at least 48 hours? If so, I'll risk $20.

Sam L. said...

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!How could that possibly beeeeeeeeeee?
The Obama administration LIED to us?

aberman said...

Ann, you are in academia and surrounded by Obama supporters. At what point do they give up defending him? Does intellectual integrity have so little value in universities that evidence like this just gets denied or downplayed? Are they really so frantic to support the progressive mission that they, like the communists of old, cannot publicly admit they were wrong? Are the Rush Limbaughs and Mark Levins and David Horowitzes of the world correct in their overall estimation of academia? Really, what gives?

Kelly said...

The CIA says the video story didn't come from them. So who did it come from? Dana Perino says there is no way Ben Rhodes would have come up with this on his own, but I bet if push comes to shove he'll get thrown under the bus.

Blue Ox said...

The same Ben Rhodes who's brother David is president of CBS News. The same CBS News that Sharyl Attkisson says squelched her attempts to investigate what happened in Benghazi.

"Not even a hint of corruption".

Big Mike said...

What difference at this point does it make?

No one who is or has been a part of this administration knows how to learn from their mistakes. It's clear from the clip that Hillary doesn't even think there was a mistake.

AJ Lynch said...

Doesn't Ben Rhodes have a sibling who runs ABC or CBS network?

chickenlittle said...

Does intellectual integrity have so little value in universities that evidence like this just gets denied or downplayed?

She likely won't answer, so I'll answer for her. No, it does not, which is one reason why higher education is heading for the sort of denouement which legal education is going through. Cf. Glenn Reynolds.

pm317 said...

90% of academia is just useless, feeding on what the top 1-10% produces. So they have to pretend and delude themselves to think they are superior human beings just to cover their own deficiencies. They have NO intellectual integrity.

pm317 said...

The CIA says the video story didn't come from them.

Think Mike Morell, ex-CIA.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Ann, you are in academia and surrounded by Obama supporters. At what point do they give up defending him?

Were you not around when the blue Gap dress proved that Clinton had lied under oath? For which he was disbarred and impeached?

If it wasn't for double-standards, leftists wouldn't have any standards at all.

Seeing Red said...

Hook line and sinker. They fell for it.

Rusty said...

So. It is maybe a big deal.

Original Mike said...

"Does intellectual integrity have so little value in universities that evidence like this just gets denied or downplayed? Are they really so frantic to support the progressive mission that they, like the communists of old, cannot publicly admit they were wrong?"

Remember the Duke lacrosse "rape" case? We don't need no stinkin evidence!

Oso Negro said...

This revelation will inspire far less opprobrium than we reserve for basketball franchise owners who tell their skank girlfriends not to bring black guys to the game. Only a few guys died, anyway. What difference....

Gahrie said...

Can we have an investigation now? How about we start with whoever decided to totally redact this memo when it was released to Congress? What other justification can be made for that redaction other than an attempt to cover up the White House collusion on the talking points? Then we can move on to who exactly discovered the internet video. It has to be either the White House of the State Dept.

The Godfather said...

What will it take for the people who voted for Obama to realize that they were suckered? That's really not something to be ashamed of; they were suckered by a world-class con-man supported by the mainstream news media. But it is something to get mad about, and if it were me, I'd be mighty pissed off.

Bob Boyd said...

They had the guy who made the video dragged out his home in middle of the night and jailed "To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

eric said...

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. What is the smoking gun? Roger Simon says this means Obama ought to be impeached. Why?

Didn't we already know all of this? What's changed with these emails?

Seems like we are learning what we already knew. I don't get what all the hubbub is about.

Issob Morocco said...

Hi Ann,

You have finally connected the first two dots. Now go back and review the media, the attacks on Romney after he criticized Obama's apology for the riots in Cairo before they happened based on this video prior to Susan Rice's Sunday Spin Cycle.

Ask yourself where was Obama that night the 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack? Where was David Axelrod?

Coming on the heels of Obama's support of Morsi's ascent in Egypt, tell me he wasn't played by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. This was set up as a political trap for Romney and that is how it was set up to play out, except MB and AQ double crossed Obama for the then rising non AQ opposition in Syria being armed by the CIA thru Turkey. Killing Stevens and the three others ended that gambit but the political trap was in motion and could not be stopped. That is why no help was sent to Benghazi, the reelection took precedent over protecting our people.

This is only the start and you have much more to expose, if you so chose to do so.

Obama lied, Americans died.

And you thought Watergate was big.......

Cheers!

Gahrie said...

Remember back when garage and his ilk where talking about Issa wasting his time and gettting no where? Maybe if this memo had been released to him, instead of totally redacted, his investigation would have gotten somewhere by now.

gk1 said...

Remember when the press jumped on Romney for having the temerity to suggest Obama was caught napping on 9/11 and was scapegoating obscure an youtube video? Jack Tapper was the only one of the WH "press" with the balls to call out the inconsistencies in the timeline, like how would people in a "spontanious riot" bring crew served weapons like mortars and machine guns to precise points nears the u.s compound? No one asked a follow up question of that. But you could tell then the rest of the press was there to provide cover and protection for the "first black president" That is there only function at this point.

Henry said...

eric wrote: I'm not sure what the big deal is here.

Agreed. From the article:

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

Well, duh. Ben Rhodes was a communications adviser. PR was his job. What did you expect?

The question is: Who gave Ben Rhodes the Internet video story? But we already had that question. It was the question no one ever answered satisfactorily for Susan Rice.

At best (or worst), these emails allow conservatives to cry, "look, another dissembling dunce in the administration!" But we knew that too. It would be hard to hit this piƱata of dunces with a freedom-of-information-act and not come up with a dozen Ben Rhodes.

Nevertheless, the President remains in the clear. Being surrounded by panicky, ass-covering incompetents is not an impeachable offense.

Mark O said...

Obama's default position is that he's an incompetent boob.

Sound right to me.

David said...

I did not need an internal email to conclude that this was the case. For the mainstream media, on the other hand, this will not be nearly enough.

Paul said...

And noticed there was no goal for telling the truth.

Speaking of which, were was Obama that night? Having an affair? On drugs? Or what?

Where was Hillary?

Who gave the stand down order?

You see, none of their 'goals' had the item called truth in them.

Gahrie said...

At best (or worst), these emails allow conservatives to cry, "look, another dissembling dunce in the administration!"

Then why was it totally redacted before being sent to Congress, and who ordered the redacting?

Stephen Reynolds said...

What was going on one week and two weeks later when the President stuck to the story? He knew all along the story was wrong and that it didn't come from the CIA. It came from the White House and State. It was about the reelection and the convention meme that Al Qaeda was on the decline. Obama lied, Romney backed down, Candy play her part.

Kirk Parker said...

"Does intellectual integrity have so little value in universities that evidence like this just gets denied or downplayed..?"

Yes, that's exactly how little value it has.

virgil xenophon said...

So now no one can comment after Ann goes beddy-by. Isn't that just special?......nothing like making us all conform to Ann's sleeping schedule..

SeanJ said...

Oh too bad. Someone thought this was a smoking gun?

Doug said...

So, how does Hillary! come up with plausible deniability after this revelation?

tim in vermont said...

First there was nothing there, now that the Obama admin has once again borne out conservative suspicions, it is "old news."

Rusty said...

Blogger Gahrie said...
Remember back when garage and his ilk

To them it's still no big deal.

St. George said...

26 comments on Benghazi.

111 comments on NBA racism.

End of story.

Mark said...

This is why you keep your powder dry until it is time instead of beating the outrage drum until it broke a year ago.

The American public got sick of Issa crying wolf incessantly. Maybe there is a wolf at the gate now but Issa lost all credibility with the major news organizations in the meantime.

Like Elijah Cummings, he is now talking wondering who cut his mic and why. Not realizing that like Cummings it is completely self-inflicted loss of credibility.

Issa needs to stop the grandstanding. After enough show hearings one d elegitimizes the process and oneself.

The Drill SGT said...

This was a FOIA request delayed a year by a private entity.

How does the WH explain not providing this to both chambers of Congress a year ago?

Incompetence?
Privilege?
They didn't ask for emails on the video or Rice?



Issob Morocco said...

From Sheryl Attkinsson's site,

"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."

Yes let's not forget the PAO in Cairo embassy who put out an apology 6 hours before any protesters gathered at our embassy in Cairo. Larry Schwartzman was his name. He disappeared, quietly, conveniently after putting out the apology for riots prior them actually occurring.

That is what Romney criticized. Larry appears to have phoned this action in, forgetting the time differences or else the AQ and MB was not aligned to the timing as to when they should have started the riots.

In short where is Larry and why did he apologize, only later to be rebuked by Embassy staff but then defended his apology still around the time of the riots just starting?

His info page disappeared from the State Department Website after he was pulled back to DC in November.

Did the Axe use him for a political hit job on Romney which then spun out of control? More to come.

Cheers!

tim in vermont said...

Of course they had to lie. If they told the truth, the right wingers would have twisted it.

Larry J said...

aberman said...
Ann, you are in academia and surrounded by Obama supporters. At what point do they give up defending him? Does intellectual integrity have so little value in universities that evidence like this just gets denied or downplayed?


To ask the question is to answer it.

RecChief said...

ehy, there's not even a smidgen of corruption there either.

Send a guy to jail "To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

I wonder if it was done through a secret router?

Hagar said...

An unfortunate memo from a junior staffer does not bring the full Clinton establishment to battle stations. at 3 AM.

MayBee said...

Gahrie makes an excellent point, and one that should draw much more scrutiny w/r/t all the documents the admin provides congress.

Why was this so heavily redacted? There is nothing secret in it.

Gahrie said...

They didn't ask for emails on the video or Rice?

The Congress did ask for this e-mail, and was given this e-mail. The problem is, the ciopy that Congress got was totally redacted.

Will said...

Obama lied to protect his election.

After a rocky Convention in Charlotte just a week prior where they had trumpeted endlessly that "AQ is dead" a Terrorist Attack - on a facility left exposed and on the anniversary of 9/11 could not be tolerated.

A media that was equal parts lazy and partisan let them get away with the deception. Candy Crowley stepped into a debate when Obama was flailing. Although she apologized that same night for getting it wrong, the damage was done.

Obama and Hillay stood by the caskets at Dover and lied to America and the families. Hillary whispered she would "get" the filmmaker.

Where we're Obama and Hillary that night? Why was backup not sent? Why was the crime scene left unprotected for weeks with evidence lying on the ground and blowing in the wind? Clearly they hoped all the evidence would blow waway.

Why did Hillary not return Hicks' phone call when he informed her Amb Stevens was missing and they were under attack?

When the 3am phone call came in both Obama and Hillary failed. But at least Obama made that Vegas fundraiser the next day.

This needs to be investigated thoroughly, but a media that was too lazy to dig into a terrorist attack on 9/11 may not care to be exposed with its finger on the scale.

Why was this information hidden for 18 months? Clearly Obama and Hillary have things to hide. The Truth is going to come out.

AReasonableMan said...

Benghazi has become Vince Foster.

Scott M said...

Nevertheless, the President remains in the clear. Being surrounded by panicky, ass-covering incompetents is not an impeachable offense.

It doesn't matter, though, does it? Even if the impossible occurred and the GOP kept the House and gained the seats necessary to convict an impeachment, the reality is that there's no way in hell they are going to do it.

The subtext behind ALL of this is Candidate Hillary.

Scott M said...

Benghazi has become Vince Foster.

Benghazi was found dead in a park with carpet fibers on it from head to toe?

tim in vermont said...

"Benghazi has become Vince Foster."

I figured that you wouldn't care if the Administration deliberately lied to the American people about Benghazi, even when confronted with evidence that it was true.

Why not face facts and admit that you are not a "little d" democrat and that you don't think the electorate can handle the truth?

Why not face facts and admit that you don't want news organizations reporting the facts and you are fine that Sharyl Attkisson was prevented from investigating it by the very people mentioned in the memo.

It doesn't bother you that documents were retroactively classified and heavily redacted, not for security reasons but for political ones, mainly to support a dishonest narrative.

As long as a Democrat wins, all lies are fine. Got it.

Gahrie said...

Benghazi has become Vince Foster.

I think it's closer to Ron Brown myself.....

khesanh0802 said...

AJ Lynch at 6:36 $20 seems solid. WP and NYT have missed story through one news cycle.

Tim said...

But Romney put a dog on the roof of his car!
As to the NBA, let me know when the racist players get called out. Kareem at least sees what is going on. Maybe Sterling just wanted to party like the players.

traditionalguy said...

I bet this E-Mail originated in the rogue Cincinnati White House.

Henry said...

Scott M wrote: The subtext behind ALL of this is Candidate Hillary.

The fact that Hillary Clinton has a political future absolutely baffles to me. Talk about failing upward.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Benghazi has become Vince Foster


No. It's Benghazi. Benghazi is a place. Vince Foster was a person.

jr565 said...

I'll do a garage mahal here, and say that they may not actually be lying if they think their talking points actually do match the truth and they are simply stating what they want to stress (which they view as the truth).
Of course, they're not going to ever acknowledge that there would be a failure of policy on their end and so have to go for the internet video as their excuse. But if they genuinely believe it, it may not be a lie.
It's WRONG, but maybe not a lie.

Rusty said...

jr565

"Just remember Jerry. It isn't a lie if YOU believe it."
George Costanza

The short answer is that the administration is an episode of "Seinfeld".

All the more reason for people to resign.

eric said...

Well, I stand corrected.

There must be something there because today Jay Carney denied the emails had anything to do with Benghazi.

"Q: Jay, I guess you’re aware that Judicial Watch obtained an email from Ben Rhodes to staff members about the Benghazi attack.

MR. CARNEY: That’s incorrect, but go ahead.

Q: Oh, OK.

MR. CARNEY: 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…"

If the administration is denying they had anything to do with Benghazi, their must be something going on.

Hagar said...

No, this is lying.
The absolute stonewalling from all departments and agencies, disappearing witnesses, and on and on, is not about stressing something they think may be the truth.

Rusty said...

Which begs the question, Hagar. What did they so monumentally fuck up that it requires this embarrassingly transparent, convoluted cover up.
They're certainly not interested in the deaths of four U.S. operatives.

Deb said...

WaPO Story on the Benghazi email.

khesanh0802 said...

Deb at 5:36. I am not sure that Jennifer Rubin really counts as the WAPO, but you're right … there it is!

Hagar said...

I think factions in the State Dept., the CIA, and probably DoD had colluded to engage in some freelance foreign policy that was very positively unlawful under US laws. I do not think the reaction was from fear of what the UN might have to say - I don't think Hillary! would care much about that, and would probably even find ways to turn UN disapproval to her advantage - but our own laws is something else. Remember Iran-Contra and all the troubles that made for Reagan and the Republicans?

Hagar said...

I am also getting a bit tired of hearing about "the four Americans who died."
I would think that more than four Americans die every day as a result of Government screw-ups. Just the VA alone can probably account for that many.

Further, I think that the reports we have sad that about 60 of the attackers died in the assault, and I would think there must have been a number of more or less innocent Libyans dead too.

If we are going to talk about people - human lives - do not these count as well?

gk1 said...

Makes you wonder about all the other redacted emails and letters this administration has produced during the investigation. We can only conclude they contain even more damaging material and the redaction was about covering up the crime, not any concerns over intelligence gathering etc. None of this is surprising in the least.

Rusty said...

Blogger Hagar said...
I am also getting a bit tired of hearing about "the four Americans who died."

I'm not.
Let me put it in a way you can appreciate.
I don't like seeing personnel, that I've paid good taxpayer money training, wasted in such a cavalier manner.
The sixty Al Qeda? They're muslim. Dying is what they're supposed to do. Yo know. For Islam.

Hagar said...

There may also have been more than "four Americans who died;" at least there seems to be a number of State, CIA, and DoD personnel known to have been in Benghazi at the time, but that have not been seen or heard from since. Whether they are now deceased or in a DoJ witness protection program seems to be an open question.

Hagar said...

I sort of think "the four Americans who died" has proved to be a tolerably good substitute for Mr. Nakoula and his video.

I do not believe in the crocodile tears shed by the MSM; the idea is still anything at all to distract attention from the cause of the attack and those responsible for setting that up.

Nichevo said...

Hagar,

What can you possibly mean by that?

You're a clever fellow and that is a foolish remark.

Do you want to think it over? Or shall I explain?

RecChief said...

I sort of think "the four Americans who died" has proved to be a tolerably good substitute for Mr. Nakoula and his video.

This administration put a man in jail to cover up the President's and Hillary!'s foreign policy failure. They put a man in jail as part of a PR effort.

America has become a banana republic, and you're tired of hearing about 4 dead americans. Are you a foreign agent? or just stupid?

Hagar said...

60 dead of the attacking force is a very high casualty rate, even if the number is somewhat exaggerated, and the total number of attackers must have been several times that. I think some early stories also mentioned that more than one group of "al Qaeda" was involved.
Now, what kind of entity could get two or more "al Qaeda" groups to cooperate in a coordinated attack on a United States government facility in Libya? And why?
And why above all must we not be told about this?
Inquiring minds want to know.

RecChief said...

60 dead of the attacking force is a very high casualty rate,

Says who?

high casualty rate in regard to what? Since we still don't really know what happened, that's an interesting statement to make.

Hagar said...

Says anybody.
10% would be a high rate of fatalities in any military attack, and I don't think anyone has suggested the attacking force was anywhere near to 600 strong.
Half that, 300, would be a large number for a guerilla attack, and that would mean a 20% fatality rate, if the number of dead is valid.

Just another thing that does not sound right about this "incident."

Meade said...

AJ Lynch said...
Professor: wanna bet you won't find a NYT or WAPO story about this for at least 48 hours? If so, I'll risk $20.

4/29/14, 6:56 PM

APRIL 30, 2014

grackle said...

It is time for Obama to resign.

I agree but it will never happen.

It's clear from the clip that Hillary doesn't even think there was a mistake.

Correction: She knows full well that there was a "mistake" but she also knows it could be politically fatal to admit it.

Hook line and sinker. They fell for it.

If the subject is the MSM or academia, no – they always knew.

What will it take for the people who voted for Obama to realize that they were suckered? That's really not something to be ashamed of; they were suckered by a world-class con-man supported by the mainstream news media. But it is something to get mad about, and if it were me, I'd be mighty pissed off.

Nope. The relevant psychological terms are rationalization due to cognitive dissonance. They knew but never expect them to be angry at themselves.

For the mainstream media, on the other hand, this will not be nearly enough.

Bingo.

How does the WH explain not providing this to both chambers of Congress a year ago?

The excuse: The memo was not about Benghazi. The MSM will either ignore it or excuse it.

Rusty said...

Blogger Hagar said...
I am also getting a bit tired of hearing about "the four Americans who died."

I'm not.
Let me put it in a way you can appreciate.
I don't like seeing personnel, that I've paid good taxpayer money training, wasted in such a cavalier manner.
The sixty Al Qeda? They're muslim. Dying is what they're supposed to do. Yo know. For Islam.

mikee said...

Were the actions of Mr. Rhodes more or less illegal than those of Scooter Libby?

Inquiring minds want to know!