- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
- ‘Duck Dynasty’ Phil Robertson suspended ‘indefinitely’ for gay quip
- John Podesta eats crow: ‘I apologize to Speaker Boehner’
Carney faces torrent of questions on Benghazi
Question of the Day
Facing a fusillade of questions on the Obama administration’s handling of the terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, last year, White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to assert that intelligence officials, not the White House or the State Department, scrubbed the official talking points about the assault.
Even though Mr. Carney acknowledged an “inter-agency” and “iterative” editing process, he continued to say the White House was responsible for changing only one word in the talking points — a change from the word “consulate” to “diplomatic post” for accuracy purposes.
“The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was they changed from referring to the facility that was attack in Benghazi from consulate, to diplomatic post … but the point being it was a matter of unsubstantive factual correction,” he said Friday During a lengthy press conference mainly focusing on Benghazi.
“There was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this an is always appropriate,” he added.
Mr. Carney also said there “was [an editing] process where there was an effort underway — an inter-agency process” and when pressed later called it an “iterative process” where “the various issues were discussed about what could be or should be said publicly, what we know, what we’re just speculating about, and that process involved a whole bunch of agencies.”
The increased scrutiny stems from an ABC News report that reveals the official talking points about the Sept. 11 attack were substantively edited 12 times to strike references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist-affiliated group, and the White House and the State Department were involved in the editing process.
On several occasions, Mr. Carney previously said the intelligence community alone crafted the talking points, which erroneously characterized the attacks as springing out of a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Islamic video. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used those talking points when she went on the Sunday morning news shows to discuss the Benghazi attack.
Critics say the administration was reluctant to say the assault on the U.S. post in Benghazi, which killed four people including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was a planned terrorist attack and point to the talking points’ emphasis on the video as its motivation without any mention of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups as proof.
Administration officials, including Mr. Carney, say intelligence officials remained unsure of the identity and affiliations of the attackers in the days after the attack but did refer to them as “extremists.” He has noted that Ansar Al-Sharia had taken credit for it on Twitter but then later recanted.
“I think the overriding concern of everyone involved in that circumstance is always to make sure that we’re not giving to those who speak in public about these issues information that cannot be confirmed, speculation about who was responsible… ,” he said.
Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the attacks and a self-described whistle-blower, testified before Congress Wednesday that he immediately knew it was a terrorist attack, was told that night that the attackers belonged to the group Ansar al-Sharia and that he conveyed that information to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the early morning of Sept. 12.
Mrs. Clinton waited until September 20 to say the violence was a planned terrorist attack. Even then, Mr. Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.
In the middle of trying to deflect questions about the role of the White House and the State Department in editing the talking points, Mr. Carney also took a jab at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, blaming him for starting the politicization of the Benghazi attacks.
“There is the discussion about, you know, the Republicans again, and this ongoing effort that began hours after the attacks, when Mitt Romney put out a press release to try to take political advantage out of these deaths, or out of the attack in Benghazi, and, in a move that was maligned even by members of his own party,” he said. “And from that day forward, there has been this effort to politicize it.”
Just moments later, reporters asked Mr. Carney if the administration was playing politics with the Benghazi attacks by making changes to the talking points to avoid questions from members of Congress.
One email from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, revealed in the ABC News report, says the State Department “building leadership” were concerned about mentioning previous threats to the diplomatic post in the talking points because members of Congress might use them to question why the State Department wasn’t more prepared for the attacks.
“When you said that Republicans were being political about it, is it not also political to say we want to keep something out of the talking points because we might be criticized by members of Congress? Is that not political motivation now?” the reporter asked.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Susan Crabtree is an award-winning investigative reporter with more than 15 years of reporting experience in Washington, D.C. Her reporting about bribery, corruption and conflict-of-interest issues on Capitol Hill has led to several FBI and ethics investigations, as well as consequences for members within their caucuses and at the ballot box. Susan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- GOP senators want IG probe of Sebelius' 'Obamacare' fundraising
- Teaming up with Christie, Obama says Jersey shore 'back in business'
- No Moore: Obama flubs name of Oklahoma city devastated by tornado, calls it 'Monroe'
- Obama to Okla. tornado victims: 'We have got your back'
- Amid his own challenges, Obama calls on Navy grads to hold themselves accountable
Latest Blog Entries
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Fourth Amendment says Obama is not at liberty to collect metadata
- Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson suspended indefinitely for gay quip
- Half of America strips religion from Christmas
- Bill Gates: The Secret Santa disguised as a 'friendly fellow' on Reddit
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson
- Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting
- NAPOLITANO: NSA spies pick up interference from the Constitution
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
- 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson: Gays 'wont inherit the kingdom of God'
- John McCain to Harry Reid: Ill kick the crap out of you
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The cold hard truth about politics in America today and the state of this once great nation.
Nobody likes to talk about dying. But we can help.
A libertarian look at breaking news and political trends by author Tom Mullen.
Does it take over 25 years in public service to really know what goes on in Washington?
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow