Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

In my last column at PJM, I wrote that Jonathan Karl of ABC News held Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responsible for dissembling about Benghazi.

Now, in the Washington Post, conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin — once the D.C. bureau chief of PJ Media — casts grave doubt about Victoria Nuland’s involvement in a cover-up, and puts Nuland’s e-mail in a very different context than that put forth by Jonathan Karl of ABC News. Rubin writes: 

A summary of e-mail exchanges involving her has circulated to news outlets, and it places [Nuland], falsely, in the thick of the controversy about the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice eventually used on the Sunday shows.

As Rubin explains, most of the people working at the State Department believed what took place at Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but that they could not publicly state that since they were awaiting confirmation from the CIA, which ran the second compound at the Benghazi consulate. 

When Nuland received another e-mail with talking points from CIA chief David Petraeus, it included points State was not allowed to make which made it seem that the agency was trying to implicate the State Department as the government agency that was ignoring warnings, rather than the CIA. Rubin is arguing that the CIA was engaged in a PR exercise meant to make it look good and was trying to cast blame for the Benghazi tragedy on the State Department. As Rubin writes:

This, by the way, gets to the heart of the matter involving Benghazi. It was primarily a CIA operation, as others have reported. If there really were warnings, why had the CIA’s station chief not been alerted? Why was its men in peril? It is not atypical for the CIA to point fingers at other agencies, but it was particularly jarring when their own personnel were victimized.

When Nuland wrote that concerns in her “building” were not being addressed, she meant only that “her department was being singled out inaccurately and unfairly by the CIA.” Rubin also stresses that all of these e-mail exchanges involved communications staff, and did not include policy-makers or high-level administration appointments at State: Rubin writes:

It is not the communications people who bear any responsibility for the scrubbing that went on over the weekend. In my own reporting, I have previously noted that Nuland studiously refused to confirm the “video made them do it” story line or the spontaneous demonstration cover story coming out of the White House. The difference between what she was saying (it’s under investigation, we don’t know, ask the White House) was noticeably different from what we heard coming from the White House, which perpetuated the video narrative again and again. 

So, please read Rubin’s post in its entirety. We can all agree, I think, on her ending. Rubin writes that Petraeus and Hillary Clinton have to be brought back to testify before Rep. Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It was the secretary of State herself who called on her top deputy Cheryl Mills to cover for her. I also think that Victoria Nuland should voluntarily appear to clarify her role, and to be given a chance to answer those like Jonathan Karl who made her the centerpiece of their stories. 

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
During her press conference on September 17, 2012, Victoria Nuland told reporters that what Ambassador Rice said on the Sunday talk shows was “very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened.” This means blaming the youtube video and the CIA talking points after removing all references to islamic terrorists. If I understand correctly Petraeus did not approve any of these changes. Maybe that is why his affair became public--to discredit him? In any case Nuland was acting as a lap dog for the administration (not just State). Jennifer Rubin's theory does not make sense.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why are Susan Rice's "talking points" more important than those used by Obama and Hilary in the Rose Garden on 9/12 and at Andrews on 9/14, by Obama on David Letterman on 9/18, by Obama at the UN on 9/25, or by the USG in the TV commercial aired in Pakistan? Didn't these public statements also require "talking points?" I'm not sure I understand the significance of Rice's talking points in comparison to the broader issue of how our security forces should and do respond to jihadist attacks, and how the US is positioned with regard to promoting Islamic speech codes in the West (blaming the movie trailer). Those actual policies, which I believe are well-established and very detrimental to a strong and free United States, need to be probed and exposed. The talking points should be viewed as evidence of whatever the standing policy is or is not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Eventually This episode will end up on The WH doorsteps. The bottom line is that BHO didn't want to repeat Carter's disastrous Iran rescue mission. He rather let people die and not take the chance of loosing an elelction.
He's nothing more than coward.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (31)
All Comments   (31)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
One thing that doesn't add up re WH & state dept actively setyting up anything against Assad is Valerie Jarrett's representation of Iran's interest right in the oval. Also runs against other evidence of Obama and Putin's budding synarchy. Makes me wonder about a double ruse, where WH is creating evidence (Benghazi, weapons to anti-Assad rebels) againbst accusations of having helped midwife the Iran bomb when it finally shows up ready to cudgel control of OPEC's freedom of price control --or worse, the sum of fears and what the mullahs routinely announce they plan to do --an airburst over Tel Aviv.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Do Not Get Conned by the Administration or the MSM.
This was a scam gone bad, from start to finish. This was a scam to Kidnap Stevens with no one to be hurt. This was to do a trade of Blind Shiek for Stevens. The problem was the exSeals who heard the explosions and ignored the order to 'Stand Down' and came to the rescue of the compound, armed themselves at the compound and started the battle there.
Follow the time lines and the stories with this concept in mind, everything fits the story and I mean everything, including the later real attack on the annex.
Soon we will have Gen Ham on the stand and we will find out who gave the order to Stand Down to AfriCom and it better be Obama because he is the only one with the authority.... Hopefully this wil end this administration and we can get back to saving our Nation from the One Worlders and the Islamics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If you're right, and if we play our cards right from this point forward, Woods and Doherty will have saved the nation.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This episode will end up on The WH doorsteps.

Particularly Valerie Jarrett's, and Tom Donilon's.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No matter how this plays out, there is only one certainty. With the protocols in place there is only one person in the chain of command who can order a stand down when a diplomatic mission is under military attack.

That person is Barrack Hussein Obama.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Now there's an interesting notion.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The more time you give these people to deny only confuses the story. The more time you give them to invent excuses, deflect, or obfuscate the more confusing the story becomes.

The more time you give a scam artist to scam you, the more likely you will succumb to the scam.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, either the CIA did warn the State Department prior to September 11, 2012, or it did not. If it did not, then witnesses from the State Department should be able to demonstrate this. I am guessing the original talking points are probably accurate, though, so Nuland's objections can't be so easily explained away as anything other than to coverup her department's own incompetence.

More witnesses need to be called, but I expect the White House to claim executive privilege from this point forward.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Please don't leave National Securitry Advisor Tom Donilon out of the thinking. Here's a few URLs to refresh (in time sequence):

http://www.allgov.com/officials/donilon-thomas?officialid=29281 (critical staff work in the Balkan wars and the eastward expansion of NATO, precisely in the areas that got nationalist Vlad Putin elected and ruined the Yeltsin attempt at democracy)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/13/obama-choice-helped-fannie-block-oversight/ (played a huge role in creating the conditions of the financial crash of 2008 --actually got sued by the gov't to provide some cover for what he did to shield Fannie from oversight, during the destruction run)

http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-letter-to-financial-services.html (scroll down a few paragraphs for Donilon working the deep external side of creating the crash)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/06/11/report-white-house-leaker-national-security-advisor-tom-donilon/ (leaking away critical top secrets re among other things our info-gathering on what Iran's nuclear weapon intentions are --enormous aid to the mullahs)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-25/donilon-to-visit-russia-in-april-for-missile-defense-discussions.html (right after, 'rot' was discovered in the Minot Minuteman III missile officer detachment --rest assured, this is only the beginning of a major attempt to destroy our strategic weapon structure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Donilon (note that even though his wiki is well-sanitized from the info above, it's still pretty hair-raising --yes there is perhaps a secret society involved, the evidence is just pouring out --what do Napolitano, Panetta, Brennan, Pickering, Mullen, and others in the top council on national security have in common, besides being wrapped up in Benghazi Gate?)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have always suspected Donilon's involvement in this mess, as he is at heart, a political hack.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If Nuland was so innocent and upstanding, why didn't she request that the other talking points be put back in so as not to solely implicate the State Department? I'll tell you why: it's because she was trying to hide the White House and State Department's culpability in the attack. She maybe wasn't explicitly obfuscating the situation, but she is surely implicated in the cover-up. I guess it depends on what you definition of "is" is.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Regarding what I'm about to say next, it is ok to ask me to adjust the tin foil (or whatever the phrase is). I have always thought the timing of the Petraeus affair "leak" was curious. After he had served his purpose, not disputing the cover story of the YouTube video as the cause for the Benghazi attack, then he was expendable. Or was it the biographer's comments about what might be going on that lead to others taking action to neutralize them both?

I may be wearing some tin foil but I think this Prezzy and his gang are capable of this and more. Anything to stay in power.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All