Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Talking Points on Benghazi Talking Points Changing

Out with the old, in with the new.

Rick Moran


May 11, 2013 - 10:14 am

The process of altering the now discredited White House narrative on the Benghazi attacks is in full swing with both the New York Times and Washington Post doing their utmost best to assist the administration in climbing out of the hole in which they have managed to dig themselves.

Yesterday, the New York Times took up the cause with an editorial that echoed many Democratic criticisms of the GOP’s “obsession” with Benghazi:

The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.

The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.

The Senate should move quickly to confirm the ambassador, Deborah Jones, whose hearing was Tuesday.

Congress and the Obama administration also need to pay more attention to what’s happening in Libya in general. After helping opposition forces oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the United States seems to have lost interest. That is a huge mistake as militias threaten the country’s democratic transition and stability. That surely is not an outcome that Ambassador Stevens would have wanted.

Republicans cut the security budget? Then why did the study previously touted in the editorial blame:

‘[S]ystemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels’ in the State Department’s bureaus of diplomatic security and near eastern affairs [which] resulted in a “security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for the security failures when she testified at a Congressional hearing in January.

And yet, it’s the GOP’s fault that there was inadequate security at the embassy — after the diplomats begged for additional protection three times.

Trying to expose lies has now become “hysterical allegations.” You would think that if the New York Times was so all-fired eager to help the administration in creating another narrative about Benghazi they’d try and be a little less hysterical themselves.

Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post is proving very able and helpful in changing the talking points used by administration defenders regarding the Benghazi talking points:

There have been many questions raised about the development of the administration’s talking points in the aftermath of the attack on Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador. There have been allegations that the administration deliberately covered up the fact that this was a terrorist attack. We have noted before, in our extensive timeline of Benghazi statements, how long it took the president to concede that point in the midst of his reelection campaign.

But with the release of 12 versions of the talking points Friday by ABC News, perhaps there is an alternative explanation: This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA.

In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing.

Sure. There was a collective case of amnesia and everyone in the state department, the White House, and the CIA all forgot there was a presidential election going on — all at the same time. Funny how that happens, no?

Since Kessler doesn’t mention that the driving force behind the alterations was Hillary Clinton’s state department and the White House input included trying to delete references to “terrorism,” it’s just coincidence that Clinton is running for president in 2016 and didn’t want anything to reflect badly on her leadership, and the president was involved in a close election campaign and didn’t want one of his major “achievements” — the elimination of al-Qaeda as a threat — to be discredited.

I’ve got another alternative explanation. Kessler is a shameless shill for the administration.

No doubt we will see additional changes in the administration’s Benghazi narrative over the next few days as supporters seek to apply lipstick to a pig and put the porker in a prom dress in order to obscure the truth. The secret briefing that included 14 media outlets on Friday (Bryan Preston covered that story here) also furthered the White House effort to change their story. The press is, for the most part dutifully carrying out their assignment with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But even Obama loyalists in the press are beginning to ask questions and any new narrative will now have to be measured against what we are gradually finding out to be the truth.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Today's statement on global communism and socialism Happy Mother's Day and may today mark the dawning of America:
What do: Benghazi, IRS, OWS, Keystone Pipeline, Quantitiative Easing, Eurozone socio/economic collapse, Putin, China’s currency manipulation, “Arab Spring,” Black Bloc, America’s social ills (same sex marriage, abortion, foreign wars, Islamism, religious persecution, et al) have in common?Sao Paulo Forum.

Please get educated what is really happening:

The genesis of this largest, most pervasive and insidious subversive ideology of the world’s most powerful, most ambitious Communist organization in Latin America, The Sao Paulo Forum, was conceived and founded by two men: former Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula”da Silva (whom President Obama personally met, calling him “The Man!”) and Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Lula was mentor and leader of several smaller movements in Brazil, most importantly the Workers Party (Partido Trabalhista-PT). This later morphed into today’s political party, The Brazilian Workers Party –(Partido Trabalhista Brasileira – PTB).
Both Lula and Fidel met in 1990, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, laying the cornerstone for this worldwide organization. The mission statement for this organization was: to restore the Communist movement, “to re-conquer in Latin America what has been lost in Eastern Europe,” and to establish, on the southern continent, a base from where Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations could launch all kinds of operations against the United States.
Mr. Obama was and is well aware of Sao Paulo Forums meetings, schedules and evolution.
Confirmation of Sao Paulo Forums worldwide expansion and widening influences came from the USA in September 19, 2002, first from Mr. Constantine C. Menges (a reknown strategic analyst) and later Max Singer a senior fellow and former President of the Hudson Institute. Later followed by:Georgetown University, America’s Future foundation and in 2006 The Intelligence Summit and Washington Times’ editor.
Why did Mr. Obama insist upon a visit, later a swing, through Latin America, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo? Because it is today recognized as the ”great center for coordinating the power in all of Latin America, subsequently responsible for disastrous changes in not only Brazilian foreign policy but other nations and continents as well. “
Is this possible? One asks! In July 1990 every Southern Hemisphere Leftist organization (more than 25) met for the founding of Sao Paulo Forum. From 1990 to 1995 its reach extended to Central American nations. In 1995, its signature year, more than 65 delegates, representing countries from Latin/Central/North Americas,Europe, Australia and Asia were present for Sao Paulo Forums annual meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay. Roughly 25% of these countries electorates’ representation were present at this meeting. Later meetings, representatives from Middle Eastern countries were present, most notably Mr. Zuhair Dhaif – head of Latin America’s Division of Iraqi’s Baathist Party and Libyan representatives at Sao Paulo Forums 10th session in Havana, Cuba.
Now, are all the loose ends tied together? Does this begin to make sense? America is a part of a larger communist/socialist world organization – The Sao Paulo Forum.
Pray. Amen. Mr. Obama cannot escape his upbringing...its bathed in Communism.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It really is a shame that SNL seldom has skits targeting their lefty comrades, perhaps because it's too easy. Let me be clear, there is nothing funny about four dead Americans and the administration's ordering special ops to stand down, because an enhance military presence might have helped the Romney campaign. Ahem.

There appears to be a market for "Ronco's CYA Blame Shifter", which gives you vague talking points for any occasion. Kids can use it to explain who really broke the lamp. Partners can now explain why what looked like cheating wasn't. When the cop pulls you over? Speeding is an acceleration problem and the smell of alcohol is because the auto detailers are using stronger products. Perhaps Tiger Woods could pick up another endorsement, he could have used this to explain why all these women claimed to know him. Very soon I expect Obama to blame the teleprompter. A truck of them was stolen, the Ronco software was installed without his knowledge and anyone who claims otherwise, is racist. And wants to go back to the 1950s. /sarc off
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Benghazi is inherently a big deal because our Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed. That is a very rare event requiring full investigation to determine what happened. We also know that the military was given several orders to stand down and not intervene, but we don't know the details. In addition, several different government officials blamed the attack on a protest of an anti-Muslim video when there was widespread knowledge that no protest and spontaneous attack had occurred. On top of all this, there appears to have been an effort to suppress the testimony of career State Department officials. An independent investigation is both necessary and normal.

Sequestration didn't cut the budget in the way families and businesses think of budgets. Sequestration only reduced the rate of increase in spending.

There is some uncertainty what the US government was doing in Benghazi. It is possible that they were doing something good, but covert, like trying to prevent weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists. However, since this administration tends to leak the positive stories, my guess is they were doing something politically unpopular that they want to hide.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It may be that Glenn Kessler is proving "helpful," but he is not proving "able" to provide a plausible narrative measured against what we already know to be the truth. How does his hypothetical "bureaucratic knife fight" in any way explain the President, and his spokespeople in the Executive branch, pushing a youtube video story for weeks full well knowing it not to be true? The critical and inescapable point being obscured is that, when the Administration ultimately talked, what it said had no basis whatsoever in any version of the so-called talking points.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
On July 20, 1993, six months to the day after Bill Clinton took office as President of the United States, the White House Deputy Council, Vincent Foster, told his secretary Deborah Gorham, "I'll be right back". He then walked out of his office, after offering his co-worker Linda Tripp, the leftover M&Ms from his lunch tray.
That was the last time Vincent Foster was seen alive.
Contrary to the White House spin, Vincent Foster's connection to the Clinton's was primarily via Hillary, rather than Bill. Vincent and Hillary had been partners together at the rose law firm, and allegations of an ongoing affair had persisted from the Little Rock days to the White House itself.
Vincent Foster had been struggling with the Presidential Blind trust. Normally a trivial matter, the trust had been delayed for almost 6 months and the U.S. trustee's office was beginning to make noises about it. Foster was also the keeper of the files of the Clinton's Arkansas dealings and had indicated in a written memo that "Whitewater is a can of worms that you should NOT open!"
Anybody remember any of this? Seems dying and death follow this "Dynamic Duo!"
Rose Law firm was another "can-of-worms" for Hillary, all documents sealed. Billy Boy (in between Lewinsky services)signed Iraqi nation building authorization. More troops dying! Jeez! Just like Billy Boy's predecessor, LBJ in vietnam...increased troop strength from some 53,000 to over 505,000 and a rise in deaths(MIA/POWs). Seems death and destruction follow this "Dynamic Duo!" Pray! Amen. Tea Party Arise. We The People have to rid this cancer from Our White House forever!.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Talking Points on Benghazi Talking Points Changing”