Posted on 02/17/2017 7:31:50 AM PST by markomalley
Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later.
According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”
It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch.
Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13.
So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi.
The day after Hillary Clinton’s deputy had that call with key Capitol Hill staffers, including advisors to senators Durbin, Feinstein, and McGaskill, to dispute the notion the attack was about an anti-Muslim video, here’s what Carney said: “I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible.”
On September 14, hours before the remains of the Benghazi victims would arrive at Andrews Air Force Base, Carney was still blaming the video. Just steps from the Oval Office, Carney opened his briefing with this: “First of all, we are obviously closely monitoring developments in the region today. You saw that following the incidents in response to this video, the president directed the administration to take a number of steps to prepare for continued unrest.”
Carney went on to mention the video/film/movie another 30 times during his briefing. He stuck with his story even after some reporters pushed back, citing other sources who said it was indeed a pre-mediated attack. One reporter said several senators admitted the “attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror,” and asked Carney, “is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?”
Carney: “Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter…” Who cares, Sean Spicer called Justin Trudeau Joe, OMG!
But of course nothing matches the audacity of trope by Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice on September 16, 2012. Rice went on several Sunday shows to peddle a story she knew was completely phony, one that was already quickly unraveling even as most in the media and administration tried to keep it intact.
You can read most of her comments here, but Rice repeats the line that Benghazi attack was not premediated and was connected to the demonstrations in Cairo over the video (a document obtained by Judicial Watch last year shows Hillary Clinton met with Rice a few days before her television appearances). Which presidential administration is fact-challenged, again?
In a press gaggle on Air Force One the next day, guess how many times Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Rice’s comments? Ten? Five? One? Not once. Let me repeat that. The day after Obama’s national security advisor was on five news programs to blame a terrorist attack on a YouTube video, not one reporter asked the White House about it. I actually had to re-read the transcripts several times, even checking the date over and over, to make sure this was accurate. Her name did not even come up.
No discussion about the investigation. No discussion about emerging evidence from around the world that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack. (The only time it was mentioned was when Jen Psaki criticized Mitt Romney’s comments about how the administration handled Benghazi and questioned whether he was ready for “primetime.”)
Here’s what they did discuss: Debate prep, Occupy Wall Street, and the Chicago’s teachers strike. An actual human reporter asked this: “It was a beautiful weekend for golf and he wasn’t out on the course. Is it safe to assume maybe he was doing some preparation at the White House?” WHAT? Then they joked about football and “Saturday Night Live.”
Sometimes the hypocrisy, double standard, and outright lies by the media under the Trump presidency is funny. Sometimes it is infuriating. But never was the media’s complicit sheep-like coverage more evident than it the days after Benghazi, behavior you can never imagine now. They have yet to admit their mistakes and failures, even as more evidence is revealed.
Remember that the next time you want to worry about how Trump is responsible for undermining the media’s integrity and credibility.
outstanding
Zero’s theater.... with the sock puppets in the press.
Control-LEFT media cannot be trusted.
I’m not sure what really happened in the Flynn thing, BUT the whole thing sends a clear message to everyone else. “You play with this administration straight-up, or you’re gone.”
A good message.
And Rice WAS NOT summarily dismissed as she had her marching orders from the Obama Admin. When you come to think of it, NOT ONE of Obama’s liars has even been held accountable for their behavior. And some have retired with lifetime pensions at our expense. DRAIN THE SWAMP.
Good and important points made here, but it would be better to be accuraye about Susan Rice.
At the time of the Benghazi attacks she was Ambassador to the UN. Obama later promoted her to NSA on 07/01/2013.
Is the poor schlub who made “the video” still in jail?
Does he have any recourse for the false arrest he endured?
Obama’s 2nd term was illegal & illegitMate.
A major crime was committed when O & his staff purposely & intentionally deceived the nation so be would be re-elected for a 2nd term.
Trump could have Sessions or Congress investigate this, uncover it, and in one sweep invalidate every law & exec order signed/issued in O’s 2nd term.
Won’t happen & would drive progressives into total insanity - they are halfway now - & further divide the nation.
But such a move would go a long way to ensuring such a pre-election deception would probably never happen again.
The fake media helped perpetuate the lie about Benghazi. As usual, they were co-conspirators.
In Sept/Oct 2012, on Meet the Press, a guest brought up Benghazi. David Gregory said we will get back to that in a moment and went to commercial.
When they came back, Benghazi was not mentioned again. Was the guest told to shut up about Benghazi?
The MSM is dying a fast well deserved death.
You are US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Americans are under attack in Benghazi. You are responsible for their security.
You are a politician and know the importance of the first statement made during a crisis.
You don’t see anything wrong with lying.
Your first statement is:
A. It’s not my fault.
B. We will find these murderers and punish them.
C. It could have been worse.
D. I accept my responsibility in this matter.
E. They did this because of a video.
Why in the world would this known liar use her first statement to confuse the issue of the motive of the attackers?
Is there anyone in the entire US who doesn’t know that there are people in that part of the world who hate us and would attack us?
But Hillary’s big concern is with covering up the reason why they attacked us at Benghazi?
Why?
She could easily have said nothing about the motive of the attackers.
But confusing Americans about the motive is the most important thing for her and Obama?
Why?
BECAUSE THE REAL REASON THEY ATTACKED US AT BENGHAZI WOULD IMPLICATE OBAMA AND HILLARY PERSONALLY.
Remember her screeching “What difference does it make?”
That screech was to frighten everyone away from looking at the motive for why we were attacked at Benghazi.
Obama and Hillary were up to no good in Libya.
Obama could have said the earth is flat and the media would have nodded in agreement and called him the world’s greatest scientist and explorer.
Bee Triple-T
Agree 100%.
I suspect multiple issues:
1. Hitlery/0vomit making personal profit from arms dealing.
2. Stephens may have been involved, too. He was either deliberately murdered by Hitlery/0vomit or else they conveniently told the US military to stand down in order to allow his murder.
3. Drug dealing?
4. Other pay for play.
#4thEstate5thColumn
Re: “Zero’s theater....with the sock puppets in the press.”
I disagree.
Most Conservatives claim that the Mainstream Media are the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.
No, it’s exactly opposite.
The Democratic Party is the political wing of the Mainstream Media.
great article
Thanks for posting
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.