This is verbatim from the NBC News First Read newsletter I get and, remember, you've been warned.
The Benghazi risk for Republicans
We understand why Republicans are again seizing on Benghazi in their effort to establish a select committee in the House to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack there. It fires up the base, puts the Obama administration on the defensive, and allows Republicans to knock likely 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton. (In many ways, the House leadership has no choice since some of their members have spent months claiming it's one the great scandals of American history; it would be odd if they didn't attempt to elevate it "special" select committee status.) But our NBC/WSJ poll from last week suggested that this is a riskier move for the GOP than it may realize. According to the poll, 47% of Americans want the United States to be LESS ACTIVE in world affairs, versus just 19% who want it to be more active. This is a country that wants it politicians to focus on the problems at home, not the problems abroad -- or that happened two years ago. And after multiple congressional hearings on the subject, an independent review, and a months-long debate over the administration's "talking points," the question becomes: How much more does the public -- outside the GOP base -- want to hear about Benghazi? Does a larger summer focus on Benghazi make the GOP seem out of touch in this election year?Is it about substance or politics?
Conservatives have charged that the press has unfairly dismissed the legitimate questions about the 2012 Benghazi attack. What did the Obama administration know and when did it know it? Why wasn't there better security? And why haven't the attackers been brought to justice? But the problem these conservatives face is that every time they invoke Hillary Clinton's name -- especially in the context of 2016 -- the more it looks like a political ploy rather than a substantive quest for information. Indeed, on "Meet the Press" yesterday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) made more references to Hillary Clinton (three) than President Obama or the Obama White House (one) when the subject turned to Benghazi. There's also a risk here that the GOP repeating its 2013 "Summer of Investigation" -- Benghazi, calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor in the IRS investigation -- gives off the impression that it doesn't have a real legislative agenda on jobs, health care, or immigration. Oh, and another Benghazi-related point: House Speaker John Boehner wanting this select committee is more than just placating the right; it's about taking the issue out of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) hands. Don't miss what House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) said about the testimony coming from Issa's committee last week. "McKeon ... called Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell an unreliable witness and criticized Lovell's assertion that the State Department was not quick to deploy troops to respond to the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya," Politico writes. Boehner needs to control this more, and a special select committee actually allows him to call more of the shots (and keep Issa out of the spotlight).And is it about keeping Hillary from running?
Politico's Michael Hirsch makes a final Benghazi-related point: Is all of this simply a way to keep Hillary Clinton AWAY from running in 2016? "Perhaps if the Republicans can't beat Hillary Clinton fairly in 2016, they can make her so disgusted by the prospect of running that she'll stay out of the race. That's where the Benghazi-Industrial Complex comes in. Clinton's 20-year sojourn in public life has been bracketed, jarringly, by two pseudo-scandals, both involving the tragic and less-than-fully-explained death of an important man in Hillary's orbit. In between there have been assorted smears and public humiliations, including real traumas like Monicagate, the cumulative effect of which has been to make Hillary reluctant to reenter the political game. Or so many of her friends and aides say, and so Republicans must be hoping." Then again, if that's what Republicans are hoping, what does that say about what they think their chances are if she DOES RUN in 2016?On the other side of the aisle, Republicans are having fun with this quote. Bill O'Reilly's last three Talking Points memos have hammered home that there is an issue with honesty and the Obama administration. Because I don't want to go somewhere else, read the memo, come back, and repeat for each of the other two memos, here are the last three Talking Points memos:
Talking Points Memo # 1
President Obama continues to decline in the polls and some brand new stuff on Benghazi
New ABC News survey out today taken among 1,000 American adults says the following; 41 percent approve of Mr. Obama's job performance; 52 percent disapprove. On the economy 42 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove. On Obamacare 37 percent like it, 57 percent do not. Finally on the way the President is handling Russia and Ukraine, 34 percent approve, 46 percent saying no, 20 percent have no opinion.Not good news for the President. In addition, Judicial Watch got a White House memo through the Freedom of Information Act that confirms the worst fears about Benghazi. The memo written by the communications guy Ben Rhodes was sent three days after the 9/11 attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The memo was written to prep Ambassador Susan Rice on what to say to the media the instructions are these, quote: "The goal to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure or policy."
By the way Ben Rhodes is now a deputy White House security advisor. So there is no longer any doubt that the White House was pushing this spontaneous uprising theory and playing down the organized terror angle. No longer any doubt they did it President Obama should have told the nation the truth. But he did not. That's one of the reasons his poll numbers are slipping. Some Americans no longer trust him.
Fox News chief White House Ed Henry asked the President about his policy nicknamed the Obama Doctrine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: What you think the Obama doctrine is in terms of what your guiding principle is on all of these crises and how you answer those critics who say they think the doctrine is weakness?
OBAMA: Well, Ed, I would -- I doubt that I'm going to have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine and -- there are actually some complimentary pieces as well about my foreign policy but I'm not sure you ran them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Ed did not know about the new Benghazi information or it would have been worse, all right?
And now the President's answer looks even more foolish because Fox News has been one of the few news operations that have actually reported on the Benghazi story honestly.
With all the chaos going on, the Republican Party has a real opportunity next November to control both Houses of Congress. If the GOP can focus on just three areas -- foreign policy, the economy and healthcare -- it should win the senate and easily keep the house.
But if Republicans are diverted into the fabricated war on women, the immigration mess, and other issues, they remain unresolved the Democrats will petty fog the real state of the union. "Talking Points" doesn't root for any political party I simply want the best for all Americans. As the ABC News poll and Benghazi information demonstrates we are not getting that right now.
Talking Points Memo # 2
President Obama, the press and the Benghazi memo
Well, now we know now there is no question, that the White House misrepresented the terror attack on September 11th, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans murdered by a coordinated terror attack, most likely from an al Qaeda affiliate. Not one person has been brought to justice in the attack -- not one.Five days after the murders, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said this to the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN RICE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: That was not true. That was not even close to being true. And a variety of people told the White House it was not true. Yet, Ambassador Rice said what she said.
Yesterday, the watchdog group Judicial Watch released the damning truth which it procured through the Freedom of Information Act. A memo written by senior White House advisor Ben Rhodes dated September 14th says that Ms. Rice was prepped to, quote: "underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy."
Again, that despite CIA people in Libya and perhaps, Defense Secretary Panetta telling the President and the White House the video had little to do with the murders. On Super Bowl Sunday, I put the question to President Obama himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations. You have some that are not. But the main thing that all of us have you to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.
O'REILLY: But it's more than that though.
OBAMA: And we've got -- and we've got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that are recommended by the independent agency but we also have to make sure that we understand our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation.
O'REILLY: I think everybody understands that, Mr. President.
OBAMA: Actually, not everybody does.
O'REILLY: I think they do.
OBAMA: Because what ends up happening -- what ends up happening is we end up creating a political agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: And that's exactly what happened. The President and the White House created a political agenda. Saying a spontaneous demonstration led to the murders, not a coordinated terror attack. And they did this because the President was running for re-election on a platform that he had broken al Qaeda and any evidence to the contrary might have hurt his campaign.
Now, did President Obama know Ambassador Rice was misleading the world? The memo from Rhodes, one of his top advisors went to his spokesperson, Jay Carney, among others. So the truth is the President stood by while the United States of America misled the world about a terror attack. But even if Mr. Obama was not directly engaged in that deception, the moment he found out about it, he should have corrected the record. But he did not even when he had a chance with me to do so. That's a huge story.
But if you read the "Wall Street Journal" today, the "New York Times," the "L.A. Times," the "Boston Globe," there is no mention of it -- none. The "Washington Post" ran the story on page 17. Only "USA Today" was honest and responsible putting the Benghazi e-mail story on the front page. Congratulations to "USA Today" which is owned by Gannett. The network news last night didn't cover the Benghazi story. MSNBC didn't cover it nor did CNN in prime time. And this morning only the CBS morning news mentioned the Benghazi story.
That's a scandal. A scandal. That is proof the American press is dishonest -- period. They are covering up a cover up as Krauthammer put it which might lead directly to the President of the United States. Yet, few Americans even know what's going on. While nearly everybody in the country knows about a racist comment by a basketball owner.
So what we have here are the words from a movie "Cool Hand Luke" is failure to communicate. And that failure by the national press to tell the American people the truth about Benghazi is for one reason and one reason only. To protect President Barack Obama.
Talking Points Memo # 3
The Benghazi story keeps getting bigger
Today, retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified before the house oversight committee about why the U.S. military did not respond at all to the terror attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.General Lovell was in Germany awaiting orders to strike at the terrorists, orders that never came.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOVELL: what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The AFRICOM J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: So that means the U.S. military, the CIA on the ground in Libya and pretty much everyone else directly involved with the Benghazi attack knew it was not a spontaneous demonstrations within hours. Yet, as we proved yesterday, the Obama administration created a fiction that the attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim videotape.
The cover was blown off that deception this week when a memo by White House advisor Ben Rhodes was released through the Freedom of Information Act. The memo clearly says that Ambassador Susan Rice was prepped to tell the world on television that a videotape incited the murders in Benghazi.
Incredibly, incredibly, even after the memo became public, White House spokesman Jay Carney denied it was even about Benghazi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN KARL: Why did it take a court case for you to release this?
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Jon, I can say again and again and I know you can keep asking again and again, this document was not about Benghazi.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: But that's not true. The Freedom of Information filing, which produced the memo finally, specifically cited correspondence about Benghazi. The "Wall Street Journal" editorialized today, quote: "Mr. Carney still insisted Ms. Rice had relied on points about the Benghazi attack that were produced by the CIA. He must think the press corps is stupid."
Well Carney may think the press corps is stupid. He knows the press corps doesn't care and that's why he says these outrageous things. He knows the coverage will be minimal, except on Fox News.
Last night, CBS Evening News didn't cover Benghazi. NBC did a 30-second reader. ABC did a report with Jonathan Karl, the man you saw there, who gave Carney a hard time. That was 10 minutes into the broadcast. ABC should have led with it. Most newspapers today either ignored or minimized the story, same thing yesterday.
So let me break it down again. According to General Lovell's testimony today the U.S. military made no attempt to defend the Americans under siege because they were not asked to do so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What specifically did the State Department, what have they done or what prevented you from doing that.
LOVELL: It's not what -- well, it's not what they did in that particular situation, it's what they didn't do. They didn't come forward with stronger requests for action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: That means then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has some explaining to do. But so does President Obama. Remember, he is the Commander-in-Chief. The military cannot move without his order. And he obviously didn't give it. Why? The general is as confused as I am.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
LOVELL: We didn't know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: So that means that the attack could have been larger. The military didn't know. And forces didn't mobilize to save the people under siege? That's shocking. See, that's what this story is all about -- the failure of the U.S. government to protect Americans under fire in Benghazi. And then after the fact trying to say oh the killers weren't organized terrorists.
Are we all getting this? But, again, the national media won't cover it. Does it get any worse than that in our democracy? "Talking Points" is angry. The Obama administration was completely derelict in the Benghazi terror attack and was dishonest in the aftermath. And the national press doesn't give a damn? Disgraceful.
And, to sum all of this up, Brit Hume said this, "You’re right. There wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack. That’s not the question. The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack when the administration sent its U.N. Ambassador out to explain it to everybody and she did so falsely that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used. I’m not talking about the CIA talking points. I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day which were monumentally misleading and were, and have since been shown to be false and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.” – Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume talking to former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., on “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace”
And after reading all of that, I wonder if there is a reason to not believe the Obama administration. I mean, does anyone question if time will reveal the the truth in all of this? Doesn't the truth eventually reveal itself?
No comments:
Post a Comment