Will the lies ever stop?
Thanks to the watchdog group Judicial Watch, we now have documented proof that the White House was directly involved in crafting the patently false story offered by the Obama administration about Benghazi in 2012.
Those Sunday show talking points blamed the attacks on a YouTube video instead of terrorism, and they were the talking points that then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used when she appeared on Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks.
When it was revealed that the attacks in Benghazi weren't the result of a video-inspired protest, the White House blamed the inaccurate information on the CIA. They denied that they were trying to protect the president's re-election campaign. In 2013, press secretary Jay Carney said the White House's role was “minimal and non-substantive.”
But in newly released emails dated from before Rice’s television appearances, White House adviser Ben Rhodes writes that her goals were "[t]o underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy" and "[t]o reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
Former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few reporters who challenged the administration’s narrative on Benghazi, wrote yesterday, “Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.”
ABC reporter Jon Karl grilled Carney about the emails on Wednesday.
Carney made himself look foolish as he actually insisted that the documents -- which were pried loose from the administration in a lawsuit -- weren't even about Benghazi. He tried to dismiss these new revelations as insignificant.
“Why did it take a court case for you to release this?” Karl asked.
“This document was not about Benghazi,” Carney claimed.
Of course, there’s a whole section in the new documents labeled “BENGHAZI.”
Despite what’s printed in black and white, Carney insists that the video-caused-the-attacks narrative came from the CIA, not the White House. But again, Karl had him beat. “It did not come from the CIA,” he reminded him, noting that the former director of the CIA had testified that his analysts did not link the video to the attacks.
So to review:
It took a court order for the White House to release these documents, but Carney says they are no big deal.
The documents say “BENGHAZI,” but Carney says they’re not about Benghazi.
Rhodes wrote that the White House wanted Rice to link Benghazi to a YouTube video, but Carney insists the White House didn’t make Rice link Benghazi to a YouTube video.
When Carney is presented with documents that prove he lied to reporters, he just lies some more.
How can Americans believe anything this administration says?
As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously asked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”available at this link.