Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Bryan Preston


May 10, 2013 - 1:51 pm

This afternoon’s White House press briefing was extraordinary. Spokesman Jay Carney stood by his now thoroughly discredited claim that the White House made just one “stylistic” edit to the Benghazi talking points. He invoked the name of Mitt Romney twice, and the “previous administration” once, the latter in connection with the IRS’ apology to conservative groups for targeting them during an election year. For the most part, Carney danced around the press corps despite the fact that many in the room were unhappy to have been left out of the afternoon’s off-the-record or “deep background” meeting with select but as yet unnamed members of the media. Carney was more prepared for the sparring match than his opposites were.

Who was in that press meeting? What was its purpose? That’s for Jay Carney and friends to know, and for you not to find out.

The subject of the Cairo warning did come up. Carney brought it up himself.

Carney should have been asked why, after the CIA inserted that warning into the talking points at 4:42 PM on Friday, September 14, it survived several iterations before being removed. He should have been asked who removed it, and why.

Here is the warning’s first appearance. It comes in the third version of the talking points.

It appeared again in the 5:09 PM version.

And again in the 6:21 PM version, with a minor change to clarify that the most specific part of the warning concerned Cairo.

Carney brought the 9-10 warning up, but only to dismiss it and claim that it backed up the White House’s view that the attack was sparked by the YouTube movie. The actual warning, as we’ve posted here numerous times, does no such thing. It never even mentions the movie. Cairo was not spontaneous. It was orchestrated to achieve an end.

Someone within the Sept. 14 discussion must have had a problem with the CIA warning’s presence in the talking points. They removed it entirely. It appeared three more times, in the 6:41 PM, 6:52 PM and 8:59 PM versions.

But after the White House meeting on the morning of September 15, it was marked out.

Now you see it, now you don’t.

Now let’s look at the wording of the Cairo warning itself, which appeared on September 10.

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

The Cairo attack was pre-planned and trumpeted the day prior. The movie did play a role, but it was mostly a cameo: The Cairo jihadists used it to stir up anger and bring out the crowd. Removing even the CIA’s vague rendering of the the warning fundamentally, not stylistically, altered that talking point by strengthening the appearance that the attack began with a spontaneous protest, and minimizing the evidence that the CIA had in hand that it may have been part of a broader jihadist attack on the United States aimed at freeing jihadists in US custody.

In this post, I’ve just dealt with the talking points and the Cairo warning. Those involved in the non-response to the attack and its aftermath had in hand even stronger evidence that the movie played no role, and there was no protest. They had video from the field, and they had messages from US personnel in the field. Greg Hicks directly told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there had been no protest and that the attack was just that, an attack. He also testified that the movie was a “non-event” in Libya.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Poor, poor Jay Carney.

He's trying to do an impossible job under Orwellian conditions...or Kafka-esque conditions....he's in so totally over his head....totally unprepared, just like the rest of our current "administration". .....his body language and facial expressions in the published pictures are those of someone running away from daemons in a nightmare but never actually gaining, or going anywhere.

Of course, he could've turned down the job. So much for the lure of working inside the White House pressure cooker.

[ pun intended...]
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Could it be Valarie Jarrett's fingers did the walking for the rewrites?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
OH, My! Yes!

Dear readers:

Try to think of this aggregate: Valerie Jarrett, Miss Hillary, Susan Rice, Janet Napolitano....and all of the rest of these busy, busy, busy unqualified, untutored, dangerously silly appointees and staffers finding themselves strangled by events beyond their understanding. Pointing fingers in a bureaucratic circle, covering their a***s.......on and on and on......

But HEY!.....equal opportunity!....affirmative action!....let's all be politically correct at any cost.......that's what we're doing.

We're in a helluva mess. Sure is costly.

Those who voted for Obama and his claque have a lot of explaining expected of them as this national debacle unfolds.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I read something today on another site that the organizers of the Egyptian riot were demanding (of the American government) that the blind sheik be released but that AS SOON as the death of Ambassador Stevens was announced, those demands ceased. (oops, we don't have a hostage Ambassador any more so there goes our bargaining chip).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In my posts that are now in a memory hole, I pointed out that the Islamist group announced the embassy protest for the blind sheik on Aug. 30. The film "Innocence of Muslims" was not shown on Cairo TV til Sept. 9. A few weeks before all that Morsi had promised to work for the release of the blind sheik.

The mystery in all of this is the Ultra soccer hooligans who were the shock troops at the embassy storming. They are not Islamists and they certainly are not natural allies of Salafis. However they had come to be anti-Morsi early on.

This all leads me to believe the actual storming had nothing to do with 9/11 or the film but was yet another attempt to embarrass Morsi by a group of pretty fearless veteran street fighters who above all hate the police. The Ultras don't give a squat about any film and have certainly not mentioned it since.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All