Jay Carney is learning the age old lesson:
Bad news doesn’t get better with age.
It’s past beginning to look bad for Obama, it’s REALLY looking bad for Obama.
What was a slowly developing bad news story for the administration has quickly gained steam and is now looking to be a major cover up. After the news that the administration received e-mails from the consulate just 2 hours into the attack, Obama can only be reeling:
(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
Further, there is video footage that shows there was no protest that night in Libya:
In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.
Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.
I get that assessing reports and data real time is tough and can often be wrong. But as the days and weeks advanced, Obama continued to tell us that what happened in Benghazi was something other than what it was:
Just in this montage, the administration mentions the video at least 7 times over 6 days. This is a massive failure in terms of obtaining the truth and an absolute failure in dealing with the American people’s faith and trust in the government.
The fact is this, the administration had reason to believe in the first 2 hours that we were dealing with a terrorist attack and certainly within the first 2 days this was crystal clear.
Yawn. That’s why Obama called it “acts of terror” the next day. Then, responsibly, they spent the next week or so really gathering info so they could be sure they had it right. Romney didn’t even bring this up in the debate because he knows it has no traction against Obama. There is nothing there. It’s also very old news.
Yawn. That’s why Obama called it “acts of terror” the next day.
So, let’s go to the transcript.
He mentions the attacks directly in the statements I’m copying.
The first:
The second:
The third:
The fourth:
The fifth:
The sixth:
The seventh:
Seven mentions of the attack and not one reference to terrorism, terrorist acts or acts of terrorism. The only time Obama mentions the phrase “acts of terror” is his reference to the 9/11/2001 attacks;
Obama never once referenced these attacks as terrorist attacks. Further, for the next TWO weeks he did NOT take the stance that “we are investigating and, as of yet, are unsure of what happened.” On the contrary. Obama sent out his administration to report that the attacks in Benghazi was the result of a video. His stance on the situation was that he knew and that it was the video.
If he felt that they were terrorist attacks in the Rose Garden, why did he for the next two weeks report that they were, without a hint of a doubt, the result of that video?
Oh, and the misleading ad you post is not giving reactions to Benghazi, but to the rash of protests around the Mideast. There were protests all over the Mideast, and that’s what they were talking about in those quotes. Obama was very careful to wait until they got all the facts before he said more than he did in the Rose Garden the next day.
Oh, and the misleading ad you post is not giving reactions to Benghazi, but to the rash of protests around the Mideast.
Listen to it again. Brother said, “Specifically in Libya.”
I don’t think you really mean to take the position that the administration clearly and without doubt, labelled this as a terrorist attack.
Scott ,
Please tell me how you can ignore President Obama and Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton going out on TV for many days and misleading Americans by talking of the video ? This attack put to lie the narrative that Obama effectively defeated terrorism by killing Bin Laden . Oh by the way, did you know that President Obama killed Osama, Yawn ? Old news .
I don’t think that anyone claims Obama ended terrorism, only that he has made significant progress against it, as did President Bush. The Benghazi attack by itself I don’t think provides that much evidence either way on Obama’s record on terrorism.
The administration was slow in making all the facts public. Obviously the administration was the first case of being slow to admit to bad news.
For there to be a ‘cover-up’, it seems to me you have to have a criminal or near criminal act to cover-up. Benghazi may or may not have been a results of bad policy, but I don’t think anything even approaches criminality is there.
Isn’t the more important question what could have done to have prevented this? It looks like more could have, but the congress also looks at least partially complicit.
In anycase, I don’t think Romney should even attempt to suggest he can guarantee this wouldn’t have or won’t occur on his watch if there is one. He can’t keep that promise.
I don’t think that anyone claims Obama ended terrorism
I agree.
only that he has made significant progress against it, as did President Bush.
I agree.
The Benghazi attack by itself I don’t think provides that much evidence either way on Obama’s record on terrorism.
I agree.
The administration was slow in making all the facts public. Obviously the administration was the first case of being slow to admit to bad news.
For there to be a ‘cover-up’, it seems to me you have to have a criminal or near criminal act to cover-up. Benghazi may or may not have been a results of bad policy, but I don’t think anything even approaches criminality is there.
I’m certainly not holding Obama responsible FOR Benghazi. I’m holding Obama responsible for the fall out AFTER Benghazi.
Obama lied to us for those two weeks.
In anycase, I don’t think Romney should even attempt to suggest he can guarantee this wouldn’t have or won’t occur on his watch if there is one. He can’t keep that promise.
I don’t think he’s ever made that case.
Bruce ,
I only ask one thing . Give me a rational reason for President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Ambassador Rice speaking about the video for so long when they knew it did not spark the attack .