Embassy Attacks

Obama Administration, Apologists Not Part of Reality Based Community on Benghazi, "It Was False Information" Says Democrat (!)

Revealed documents suggest editing of intel talking points was politically motivated.


but she's on the right team!

The line on Benghazi went from "wait for what the investigation reveals it to be" to "what difference does it make?" in a matter of months. When Susan Rice did the Sunday talk show circuit the weekend after the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, she wasn't a part of the reality-based community, peddling the story of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic video on YouTube as the explanation for the attack in Benghazi.

Documents revealed by a House investigation into the Benghazi response suggest the White House was aware of Al-Qaeda involvement in the plot even as it was ongoing, let alone nearly a week later when Rice appeared on television. This Sunday, some Congressional Democrats tried to distance themselves from Rice's increasingly obviously dishonest explanation of the Benghazi attack. Via Fox News:

Removed from the CIA's so-called talking points were references to "Islamic extremists" and Al Qaeda in Libya. And five days later, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made the Sunday talk show rounds to say the attacks were "demonstrations" sparked by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

However, the video is never mentioned in the numerous talking-points drafts, according to a Weekly Standard story last week, based in part on a 43-page House report and records of official emails.

"Well, it was scrubbed," Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told "Fox News Sunday." "It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that. It was false information…"

At the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes provides a first draft version of CIA talking points and the final one on which Rice insisted she relied. Media Matters made a big deal out of the fact that reference to the protests being "spontaneously inspired" in both the first and final draft "vindicates" Susan Rice, deliberately obfuscating just what was excised from the first draft, which includes a specific mention of a link to Al-Qaeda (and indeed last week CNN reported three specific Al-Qaeda linked suspects with possible ties in Mali),  the possible link to the Libyan extremist group Ansar al Sharia, and the role of the "wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya" (due in large part to the US-backed intervention in the 2011 civil war). All these things appeared in the original but were gone once the White House and other government officials had massaged the talking points to limit political damage. This has colored the administration's "evolving" handling of the Benghazi incident.

Yet despite all this, somehow it's the perceived conservative media's fault if these latest revelations about Benghazi are treated with the same childish "I can't hear you!" as every previous question about the administration's "truthiness" is handled by his media apologists, even as it becomes increasingly clear the administration's consistently misled the public on Benghazi. 

NEXT: Officer Faces Lawsuit Over Warrantless Entry and Arrest

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rice is a good soldier. She went out there an lied and did what she was told. I am sure she understands that her career now has to be sacrificed for the greater good. And besides, I am sure she already has a big paying job along with a firm promise that she will get an important position in the next Democratic administration after all of this has blown over.

    1. What is striking is that, at the time, Obama went out to the podium and accused the skeptical of attacking Rice, saying, in essence, “Don’t pick on her. You should be picking on me.”

      Yet no one took him up on the offer! Everyone attacked her and her talking points and no one attacked the president or anyone else above her.

      Why the hell not?

      1. Why the hell not?

        because the ‘no one’ you speak of is too invested in Obama to ever question him. On anything. Just look how lefty pundits did cheetah flips to justify the drone policy. On the other hand, who the hell is Rice in the big scheme?

        1. You should be thanking him.

        2. I’m talking about the Republican lawmakers who had a fit that Susan Rice might be Secretary of State.

          Why didn’t they go up to their own podium the next day and give Susan Rice a pass while hammering the president once he gave them the invitation? Were they afraid to call the damn bluff? Or were they smarter than I am giving them credit for to bide their time until now?

          As it was, making Rice the sacrificial lamb in front of Congress just looked petty. Then again, gazpacho is a dish that is best served cold.

          1. because by that time he was already re-elected. Attacking him wouldn’t have done any good.

  2. Susan Rice: I would, at least once. It might be interesting.

    1. Yeh. Me too.

    2. Yeah, she is kind of cute.

  3. This shows how much partisanship messes up the reasoning process. The proper reaction to this should be, “Dear Jesus, they’ve been lying to me. Did they fail to respond for political reasons? I’m pissed.” That’s the proper reaction if you’re fucking Obama’s best friend, let alone just some Democratic voter.

    If we always excuse our team for their dishonesty, abuse of power, or whatever bad thing they’ve done, then they’ll keep doing it.

    1. I guarantee you Susan Rice is not the least bit bothered that the White House sent her out to make a fool of herself by spreading a lie. A normal person would feel betrayed. But not these people.

      1. They could offer her an ambassadorship in Libya for her loyalty.

      2. I don’t expect character, loyalty to the American people, or adherence to the Constitution or any other legal restriction on government from her or anyone else in government. We have to demand it of them, and punish them to the greatest extent possible every time we catch them. Because we all know we miss 90% of the shenanigans that go on in DC.

        1. Look, you must be having a bad day. Why don’t you take off your red glasses, take a nap, and come back later when you feel refreshed.

          1. This story grows tiresome.

        2. They will rarely have character. But what you hope for is that they at least have a sense of dignity and self preservation. Even the worst villain is manageable if he has a sense of ego and pride because inevitably when such a person is sold out by his comrades, he will do the right thing out of spite and revenge if nothing else.

          But these people are fanatics. Someone like Rice has no pride or self respect. She will never sell them out no matter how badly they treat her. And that is a very dangerous thing.

          1. Agree re: character. In other words – appeal to their rational self-interest? Adam Smith, right every time he’s tried.

            1. Yes. But these people don’t have a sense of rational self interest.

            2. Post Karl Menger, free market economic theory isn’t dependent on Smith’s notion of rational actors.

    2. If we always excuse our team for their dishonesty, abuse of power, or whatever bad thing they’ve done, then they’ll keep doing it.

      Don’t be so naive. Aside from the one time they had to lie to protect the safety of the nation, there is no way it will ever happen again.

      1. Otter: Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up. . .you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.

    3. “Our team”? Who is “our”, white man?

      1. Please. You’re in the Khan Chapter of the Reluctant Anarchists for a Nuttier Tomorrow.


          1. I still want my new Star Trek series proposal to get picked up: The Odd Couple.

            Kirk and Khan get trapped in a time travel accident that indefinitely leaves them in the 1970s in New York. Forced by necessity to enter into a truce until they can return to the 23rd century, they get an apartment together and get jobs until they can resolve the temporal anomaly. Kirk is very neat and orderly; Khan is a slob. Hijinks ensue.

  4. “Media Matters…deliberately obfuscating….” What else is new?

  5. even as it becomes increasingly clear the administration’s consistently misled the public on Benghazi.

    Increasingly clear? This was probably the single biggest lie the administration has told (and held to) during its tenure.

    We had an administration and its media boosters attacking my consitutional rights in an attempt to sideline the real situation here.

    When an attack on a U.S. embassy occurs, and a sitting ambassador is killed, you don’t wag your finger at your own citizens while saying, “tsk, tsk, pesky freedom of speech!”

    1. The whole episode is truly disgusting. Meanwhile, some poor slob sits in Federal prison, for uploading a video to Youtube.

    2. As The Jacket pointed out on a lot of occasions, it was made even worse (if possible) by the way Obama & almost the entire left blamed it on free speech. Yeah, the video was BS excuse but to even HINT at freedom of speech being a cause rather than something to be celebrated is more crap.

  6. The truth on this is about to be blown wide open. The whistleblowers are getting ready to testify in spite of the threats and intimidation from their superiors, some of them on the record with their name and face attached to their testimony and everything.

    1. I think part of the problem for Obama is that at least some of the people who know the truth are special ops people who are a bit harder to intimidate than your typical Washington bureaucrat. The Obama people are petty thugs and bullies. The problem with being a thug and a bully is that eventually your run into someone who just doesn’t give a fuck. And that might finally be happening to the Obama people.

      1. I think part of the problem for Obama is that at least some of the people who know the truth are special ops people who are a bit harder to intimidate than your typical Washington bureaucrat.

        They’re also more likely to shut up and follow orders.

        1. Not necessarily. Special Ops people can be lose cannons

        2. They’re also more likely to shut up and follow orders.

          No. Special ops people, in my experience, are very independent and are very much keeping an eye on self-preservation. People who don’t have those qualities struggle more with the training.

          It’s great, because you can throw those guys into a bad situation where they are poorly supported, and they have the intelligence, drive and awareness to successfully accomplish a difficult mission.

          The negative is that if they decide that turning on you is in their best interest and compatible with their ethos, you can be dealing with someone who is very difficult to keep quiet or shutdown.

          1. I’d say that’s worth repeating.

          2. You can say that again!

          3. Just like Rambo.

        3. They’re also more likely to shut up and follow orders.

          No. Special ops people, in my experience, are very independent and are very much keeping an eye on self-preservation. People who don’t have those qualities struggle more with the training.

          It’s great, because you can throw those guys into a bad situation where they are poorly supported, and they have the intelligence, drive and awareness to successfully accomplish a difficult mission.

          The negative is that if they decide that turning on you is in their best interest and compatible with their ethos, you can be dealing with someone who is very difficult to keep quiet or shutdown.

          1. What Tarran said twice. The Special Ops people are a different breed than your typical do whatever it takes to get to 20 officer. Some of them really don’t give a fuck.

    2. If it does blow wide open, I would to see it take some media types with it.

  7. “The science is settled” on Benghazi, or so the line will go today and for the rest of the week. Any “new evidence” will just be colored by the poisonous political climate the Retugs created. Oh, and somehow the NRA will be involved.

    1. No Koch brothers? Gotta have a Koch.

      1. The Kochtopus looms!

    2. Lobbyists did it. Failing that, OHMIGODLOOKOVER THERE, IT’S A WAR ON WOMEN!

  8. It’s clearly Mitt Romney’s fault. If he wasn’t such a racist he wouldn’t have challenged Obama for the presidency and thus Obama would not have been compelled to lie to cover his ass.

    1. you know, i can really see someone saying that.

    2. I was told, earlier this year, by someone whose opinions I used to respect, that the only reason anyone opposes Obama’s policies is racism. The possibility that anyone could have a principled objection to the PPACA, stimulus, bailouts, Cash for Clunkers, etc, is impossible. All opposition is racist roadblocking.

      1. That is his reward for being the first black president. Thankfully the next ones won’t get the same kid glove treatment. We still have to get past the first woman president and the first gay president though.

        1. I thought his reward for being the first black president was having his likeness carved into the Mt. Rushmore Memorial. 🙂

          1. So long as it’s over Teddy Roosevelt.

        2. With any luck, the first woman president will be gay and Hispanic, that way we can get a bunch of “firsts” out of the way in one term.

          1. Clinton gives you two out of three.

        3. I think I know how it will unfold if the next black president happens to be Republican. And we’ve likely already had a gay president (James Buchanan).

          1. And we’ve likely already had a gay president (James Buchanan).


          2. ‘Andrew Jackson called them “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy”‘

            Fuck Andrew Jackson, but that’s funny.

          3. Just because Buchanan was friendly with an Alabama Senator and was hence partial to bondage and chains doesn’t mean…wait a minute…

      2. I’m curious why you respected their opinions–going to wager that they were properly critical of Bush’s policies for a near-decade and then went stark raving mad once the Right People came into power?

        1. Close relative who had never espoused blatantly foolish or mendacious ideas before to me.

  9. None of this matters. They successfully, and with the media’s willing participation, took the wind out of the sails on this one. This administration isn’t getting nailed for Jack and shit, and Jack left town.

    When the supposed Fourth Estate is shilling for you no matter what, you can get away with just about anything.

    1. They will only get nailed if the media decides that Obama is no longer useful to the cause and can now be sacrificed for the greater good. And that is doubtful.

      Now what is possible is that people below Obama like say Hillary are fed to the wolves and made to take the blame so that the cause isn’t hurt too much and this thing goes away. What if Hillary’s health isn’t so good right now and she isn’t up to running in 2016? Might she be willing to be the tar baby here to save the party some embarrassment? Taking the fall for the men in her life is her move. That is what she does. She is a feminist icon after all.

      1. she took the fall for Bill, but she still had a political future at the time. I don’t see her doing so for Obama.

        1. She would do it for Obama because Hillary is a true believer. She was always the more real liberal than Bill. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if she were willing to do it.

          1. I think that Bill wouldn’t let her. which is kind of hilarious

            1. I don’t think *she* would let her. Nor would her supporters. As I mentioned on a previous occasion, Hillary could release King Ghidorah over Tokyo and her base would say it was Republicans’ fault for making a big deal about it.

      2. Just like LBJ when his polls went south and the media was giddy with the idea they were going to get a Kennedy to replace him.

        1. And that is why I shot Bobby and planted the gun on the Arab guy. No tears I have tasted have been tastier than those of his admirers in the media.

      3. Clinton won’t be president. 70 is too old. Reagan was 70 when he started and he was too old and his brain had already half turned to mush by the end of his second term.

        1. John McCain is 76, somebody needs to get him this memo.

          1. And look at how fucking crazy the man is!

            1. And look how much he is the president.

  10. Alright, I think I found the response that epitomizes the state of today’s liberals. Courtesy of the cesspool that is a Slate comment section:

    …liberals are sickened by the right wing hypocrisy surrounding RW fanaticism in benghazi – the same RWers who never took an interest in 9/11/2001 – and called those who questioned the Bush administration traitors for wondering how Bush and co. so badly dropped the ball on 9/11 leaving almost 3000 Americans (in America) dead – the same right wingers who TO THIS DAY declare that Bush kept us safe – the same right wingers who have never called for ANY Bush administration officials to pay for their complicity in the 9/11 attacks, the same right wingers who screamed about the fog of war – the same right wingers who were all thumbs up at “Mission Accomplished…” etc, etc, etc…so have mistakes been made in Benghazi? probably. Do I care based on the bar set by the right wing after 9/11? No, I really don’t…

    It doesn’t matter because Booooshhhh!!!

    1. There logic is as follows. This is horrible but they are prevented from doing anything about it because doing so would empower the Republicans who are so horrible that anything must be done to keep them out of power.

      They feel terrible about watching this happen and nothing being done about it. But the Republicans are so awful they leave liberals no other choice. So once again the world is that much worse because of the Republicans.

      This is what they will tell themselves. I guarantee it.

    2. What? Bush & Co. fucked it up, so it no longer matters if anyone fucks anything up again?

  11. Honestly, I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds. The most disturbing part of all this is that they locked the “film-maker who started this whole mess” up to create a patsy. Honestly, I could care less if Susan Rice’s career is a shambles because she got fed a line of BS to relay to the American people. My suspicion is, at the end of the day, she’s basically just another “Nicholas Rubashov” whose time has come up. On the other hand, jailing a guy for “dangerous speech” in order to create a false narrative is a travesty of justice on a host of levels.

    1. The locking the filmmaker up is the worst part. Worse than fucking up and leaving those people to die. The people in the compound at least were there by choice and assumed the risk that some day they might have to die in the service of their country. The film maker did none of that. He was just some poor bastard at the wrong place at the wrong time.

      1. To my thinking, their leaving the embassy staff to die was just what you said, a fuck up. And honestly, I’m pretty tolerant of fuck ups. Just figure out what went wrong and act to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But, they’re not acknowledging the fuck up and locking people up to cover things up. That’s an active act of malice that, as a citizen, I can’t and shouldn’t have to tolerate.

        1. Politicians are so used to lying and obfuscating to protect their public image that they become sociopaths. They become incapable of assessing when simply being open and telling the truth would ultimately be less damaging in the long run than trying to cover things up, even when you have the media/entertainment complex to give you a hand in that coverup.

          Contrary to what Obama said at that graduation speech, it’s not some nefarious right-wing boogeyman that makes people lose confidence in their government. It’s the actions of those in government themselves which erode trust.

    2. Of course you’re right, but the guy wasn’t jailed for his speech, but for a probation violation. That is the beauty of creating so many crimes that virtually everone is guilty of something. When you need to toss someone or prison or shut them up, just rummage around in the big bins marked “USC” and “CFR.” You’re bound to find the tool you need.

      1. “Of course you’re right, but the guy wasn’t jailed for his speech, but for a probation violation.”

        Yeah, because FBI agents are sent from DC to investigate every possible probation violation. But, I do get your point. And, bluntly, I find the nature of the prosecution all the more disgusting. Is there anyone out there who, for a minute, doesn’t know Nokula is in jail because he made the video?

        1. Those who defended the action on this very board at the time it happened either truly believed in the just cause of punishing the parole violation or enjoy being junior level shills for the Team.

          1. I’m inclined to suspect the latter.

          2. Wait, someone actually supported that?

  12. For this to blow wide open it has to involve more that craven idiots leaving people to die because they were afraid of the political consequences. What would blow this open is if it turns out the Ambassador and those curiously placed CIA employee, ex special Ops guys who showed up to defend the compound, were there running a CIA prison and or some kind of gun running operation buying guns from the Libyan rebels and sending them to the Syrian rebels. If that is the case, and I suspect it might be, this will be the biggest scandal since Watergate and there will be no covering it up, if and when the truth gets out.

    1. ^This^

      I have not heard a single explanation as to why they would tell bald-faced lies to downplay this as a terror attack. Why risk it? Why not make up some weak excuse and have the press back them up? Instead they took an incident that should have been a 5 on the 1-10 scale, which would have blown over by now, and made it into an 11.

      I have heard hints that there was a CIA prison there, and I am guessing they were renditioning people there and waterboarding/pulling fingernails/batteries to the nuts etc..

      To stop it from coming out during the campaign that shitweasel with a peace prize is running a torture prison is the only thing that seems a likely motivation for their behavior.

      1. Or why they told the military to stand down and not go in? It would seem to me that a story about the Obama White House and State reacting quickly and sending in the military to save Americans wold be something that you would want. Or if they didn’t get there in time, you would want to be able to say you acted quickly and got the people who did this.

        Telling the military to stand down is just inexplicable. The only reason I can think to do it is that there was something in that compound the White House didn’t want anyone to see.

        1. I wonder if any journalists have the balls to go and ask the Libyans who did see……ok I made myself laugh that time.

          1. There was some reason why they attacked that compound. Understand, this wasn’t an angry mob. This was a coordinated company level attack with mortars and crew serve weapons. The two SEALS killed well over a hundred attackers. It was one of the greatest last stands in American history.

            There was nothing spontaneous about that attack. It was planned and it was executed by a pretty large paramilitary force. So why was some paramilitary group in Libya attacking an annex of the American embassy? Not even the embassy but an annex. And only that annex. It is not like there were any other attacks on Americans in Libya. Just there and in very large force.

            Yeah, there was nothing random about that attack. There was something there those people wanted.

            1. A pile of Gaddafi’s gold perhaps?

          2. Insert line about how the legacy media has the resources to do the hard-hitting investigative journalism those icky bloggers can’t.

      2. Well, I don’t want to defend the Administration, but we shouldn’t get into such borderline conspiracy theorizing ahead of the testimony and stuff.

        As I recall, there was a whole flap soon after the attack because the compound was left so unsecured that a CNN reporter was able to just walk in and find Chris Stephens’s diary lying around.

        Now, you could very well come up with a “but that’s the genius of it! type explanation that fits with the theory, but I’m inclined to be skeptical without hard proof.

  13. I don’t see how this isn’t worse then watergate
    cover up illegal wiretapping that you and friends participated in to give you leg up politically to save presidential face.
    cover up the death of an ambassador and several other Americans that you and friends may have prevented but didn’t due gross negligence to give you the leg up politically to save presidential face.

    1. *or

    2. How many people died because of Watergate? How many innocent people were framed and sent to prison because of Watergate?

      At the heart of Watergate was the misuse and corruption of official institutions like the FBI and CIA for partisan political purposes. And that seems to be what is happening here.

  14. I don’t get it, it’s hard not to get angry reading the weekly standard article. It lists the lies that we’re told and then gives the evidence proving they were lying. How is this not fucking front page news EVERYWHERE? A WH coverup, dead Americans, damning evidence, how does the press stay in business NOT covering this???

    1. ” How is this not fucking front page news EVERYWHERE?”

      I laughed.

      1. Can you hear my impotent rage?

        1. Yes and I can feel it. Been there.

          When I heard Charles Curalt say that he was a lefty and he and most of the rest of journalists slanted news to the left because after all what has the right ever done for us, nothing thats what. Not one thing ever.

          I realized then that the media here really is just like Pravda. Lower your expectations of them and your blood pressure will lower as well.

    2. if it’s in the Weekly Standard then, by definition, the rest of the media must ignore it. Because if you give credence to one story published in a right-wing outlet, you have to ask if and when they’ve been right on others.

  15. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  16. Odd that none of our resident lefty trolls have showed up on any of the Bengazi threads today. It is almost as if they don’t want to talk about it or something.

    1. We already know what they would say so why bother?

      “Booossshhhh” “Iraq” “not as bad”

      There, happy?

      1. And Fox News!!

        You forgot that.

        1. Oh ya . Also “KOCHTOPUS!”

        2. You misspelled Faux.

    2. Or they’re all sockpuppets run by the same person who happens to be busy right now.

      1. No. They are on other threads. My guess is the handlers haven’t gotten their talking points yet. I think they are having a hard time determining what the talking points are going to be. So right now they are just ignoring it.

        1. I don’t think they need talking points for a story that’s barely getting coverage

          1. Oh it is getting some coverage. They are working feverishly to come up with the talking points. It is just hard to do right now. Give it a day or two and watch. There will be hundreds of liberal commentators on every board repeating the exact same talking points. Happens every day.

    3. I’m sure they’re off doing important things like winning the stock market or packing their bags for OWS 2: Occupation Boogaloo.

  17. After looking at all of this and looking at the facts of the matter, I am still wondering if those women in the advertisement are really over 50.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.