Why the Government Covers Up Benghazi Scandal with Lies
Truth-Detectors: In these days when Truth is endangered by political expediency, it is important that we learn to discern Truth from Error, fraud, or downright deception
1. Two Brothers at Center of Benghazi Controversy: One Runs CBS News, the Other Is Obama’s Adviser
The disclosure this week of a White House document on Benghazi has thrust CBS News into the spotlight for its coverage in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. CBS failed to cover the latest Benghazi developments.
CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser who drafted the newly released document about Benghazi just days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans. Ben Rhodes’s involvement was first revealed Tuesday when Judicial Watch obtained the document as part of a court case.
>>> Read More: New Evidence Shows White House Role in Changing Benghazi Talking Points
2. Guns and Terrorists: Why Obama is Desperate to Bury Benghazi
This could be the lie to ruin his legacy and the future legacy of lots of liberals.
Check it out:
Amidst new revelations concerning emails that show the Obama administration conspired to create a phony narrative around the Benghazi attacks, the true purpose behind the cover-up is being obfuscated – the fact that an annex near the U.S. embassy was being used by the CIA to transfer surface to air missiles to terrorists in Syria.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today issued a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before the committee on May 21 about Benghazi following the release of emails by Judicial Watch which show that the White House crafted a deceptive policy to falsely frame the attack as a spontaneous protest sparked by a YouTube video in order to protect Barack Obama’s image.
Lost in the haze of claims and counter claims is the real reason why the White House is desperate to prevent the attack from coming under any further scrutiny – because it would likely reveal an arms smuggling scandal that could rival Iran-Contra.
Continue Reading on www.infowars.com …
RUSH: This Vietor and these people, you name it, they don’t think that they work for you or me. They work for Obama and their job is to protect him not to tell you the truth. You have to understand, these people are all real uber leftists. As such, Nancy, they don’t really think much of you. Your average, everyday leftist has contempt for what he thinks is the idiot, dumkoff average American. By the time you put these people in positions of bureaucratic power like this, they have arrogance and condescension and they think you can’t even keep up with them. Even if they would respect you, you’re not smart enough to know what they do and how they do it. So the idea that they work for you and owe you anything? “Ha! Ha! What an idiot you are.” That’s not why they’re there.
3. Cover-up of Cover-up
HILLARY: What difference, at this point, does it make?
RUSH: Hillary Clinton was livid. What difference does it make? What difference does it make how four people died? Right, now what difference does it make? So we’ve heard from General Lovell. We’ve heard the montage of the Regime and their leaders and they’re lying through their teeth, and Jay Carney today. It all goes back to Cairo, folks. If you’ll recall, our embassy apologized before anything had happened. I mean, that’s the thing I remember. That’s the thing that first got my attention. I said, “What the hell is this?” They are something like seven or eight hours ahead of us so it was well known by the time this program started. Why in the world are they apologizing? Nothing had happened.
And then I heard, “Well, we’re apologizing hoping that it will mollify any protests.” And then the protests happened, and Obama — if you want to know why they’re still desperate to blame this video, and why they were then, they’re desperate to blame it now to support the lies they told then. Back then the reason they blamed the video was, Obama had told everybody he’d killed off Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was dead. There was an election coming up and terrorism had been vanquished. Obama did it. Yeah, the pictures of Obama in the Situation Room. They went in there and got bin Laden and Osama’s dead and GM’s alive and all that stuff being said at the convention.
Then we had a terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11 while Obama’s in office. Oh, my God, we can’t have that. Oh, gee, that undercuts everything Obama stands for. So they all got in gear. Somebody found this video, heard about it, came up with it, supposedly Hillary, and they ran with it, 12 different redactions or revisions of the memos back and forth to explain all this. It was a purely political cover-up, and now they’re engaged in a cover-up of the cover-up. That is what is happening now, a cover-up of the cover-up.
4. Lies Exposed
Jonathan Karl pummeled Jay Carney with questions about the White House’s political response to the deadly terrorist attacks.
1) The bottom line is that Karl and former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson were correct all along: The White House did, indeed, play a role in shaping Susan Rice’s deeply misleading Benghazi talking points, and they lied about it. Carney himself once claimed that the only change the White House or State Department made to her talking points was a single cosmetic revision. For the umpteenth time, that has been exposed as a lie. True to form, Carney treated Karl with sneering contempt throughout the exchange, at one point intimating that the journalist was too jet-lagged to ask coherent questions.
2) Who dreamed up the “internet video” excuse? We still don’t have the answer to that question, but it wasn’t the intelligence community. And it did appear in the now-infamous Ben Rhodes email that finally came to light this week. The key quote: The administration’s goal was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” It’s right there in black and white. A smoking gun, right? Wrong, says the White House’s top spokesman…
(3) Carney’s latest explanation is that the Rhodes email (which directly and comprehensively contradicts the White House’s previous assertions)…wait for it…wasn’t about Benghazi.
(4) The White House and senior administration officials repeatedly linked Benghazi to the internet video as they deliberately downplayed the terrorism angle (despite all of the intelligence). Indeed, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the grieving mother of a murdered Benghazi victim that the attacks were “about the video.” Obama and Clinton fed that untruth to Patricia Smith on the day of the memorial service on September 14, 2012 — which happens to be the exact day Rhodes’ internal email was sent.
(5) Karl asked why this batch of emails had not been previously released to Congress and the public. Remember, the White House has been saying that its previous Benghazi document dump was exhaustive, proving that the story was over. Carney’s slithery answer (video):
Later in the press conference, the Press Secretary went on to assert that the White House had “put out” all of the information on Benghazi. That’s demonstrably false. They withheld these emails, which were most assuredly about Benghazi (see items 3 and 4), and only came to light when Judicial Watch sued the administration. By the way, the FOIA request that prompted that lawsuit specifically asked for talking points pertaining to Benghazi — and the administration, under duress, produced…ahem…the Rhodes email:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/04/30/media-playing-catchup-on-benghazi-n1831609
5. Scandal cover-up for political reasons
Why the Benghazi Email Still Matters
The release of a new batch of White House emails relating to the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terror attack is a problem for the Obama administration. The emails, specifically one from Deputy National Security Director Ben Rhodes, indicates that the White House was attempting to orchestrate responses to the attack in such a way as to promulgate the message that “these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Coming as it does a day after the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, the communication appears to be clear proof that the false story that the attack was a case of film criticism run amok can be traced directly to high-ranking officials with clear political motivations.
The reason the lie still sticks in the collective craw of the American people is that the falsehoods helped reelect President Obama. As Rhodes’s communication makes clear, the White House’s No. 1 concern at that moment seemed to be more about the American people thinking that al-Qaeda was reviving than the fact that the terror group and its affiliates had done it. The attempt to convince Americans that a video was at fault (for which the administration wrongly issued a profuse apology to the Muslim world) was no innocent mistake. With the assistance of the mainstream media (remember CNN Candy Crowley intervening on behalf of the president when he was pressed on the issue by Mitt Romney?), Obama was able to maintain his stance that al-Qaeda was as dead as Osama bin Laden.
The point is Rhodes’s email reveals that Rice’s false story was not an innocent mistake. It was a cynical attempt to divert public attention from the revival of Islamist terrorism at a moment during a competitive reelection when the president was basing his reelection in no small part on the notion that he was a strong leader who had vanquished that movement.
The lie may not have changed the outcome of an election that Obama was probably fated to win anyway. Nor is it as outrageous as the subsequent failure of the United States to find the terrorists responsible for the murders. But as with so many other scandals, the cover-up is in some ways worse than the original lie. As much as liberals have tired of the discussion, it should not be buried along with the four Benghazi victims.
6. Judicial Watch Seeking truth
Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.