Patterico's Pontifications

5/1/2014

Carney Today

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:40 pm

[guest post by Dana]

More spin from White House spokesman Jay Carney, who appears to be getting really annoyed by this Benghazi nonsense rearing its ugly head yet again. Today found him bristling as Fox News reporter Ed Henry pressed him for clarification about that email. As with bright shiny objects, suggesting a conspiracy theory is the standard (and desperate) go-to for the White House when caught caught with their pants down.

“The documents released through a FOIA request by the State Department that included the email that you’re talking about are explicitly about the broader areas separate from the attack on Benghazi,” Carney said.

Fox News’ Ed Henry asked, “If it’s not about Benghazi, why turn it over in a Benghazi suit?”

Carney responded, “You’d have to ask the State Department about responding to FOIA requests –again, you can just read it and decide for yourself. As many people have now said and written, this is a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy theory.”

Carney stressed again that the video was the cause of the Cairo protest and other unrest.

“I think it’s fair to say that most people remember there were demonstrations around the region in reaction to what people felt was an offensive video. And there were demonstrations outside of U.S. facilities because the video was produced inside the United States,” he said. “Again, it’s pretty clear if you read it that that’s what it’s all about. When it comes to the connection between the protest in Cairo and what happened in Benghazi, that’s drawn directly from talking points produced by the intelligence community.”

–Dana

Comments (51)

51 Responses to “Carney Today”

Ding maybe.

You know what really bothers me about this? Carney used to be a journalist. Now he is simply a liar and when this whole corrupt administration is finally gone, he will be some sort of star.

If you don’t believe me, look up George Stephanopoulos on the intertubes.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:10 pm
he feels like he can lie and get away with it cause of the whore they have in place at CBS plus his own propaganda whore wife at ABC

but everyone knows he’s a pasty douchebag sadsack liar

But still.

I bet he gets away with it.

It’s not like the media’s gonna call him on it.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:20 pm
Happydude:

I did say this before here:

“Since Rhodes’ brother is president of CBS News, don’t expect much to come of this damning email. It’s all good, you haters.

Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/30/2014 @ 6:59 pm”

Just sayin’, dude.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:26 pm
1. Well, some people find gnomes cute. No one I know finds uppity dweebs cute.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:28 pm
Well it’s all good Mr. 80 cause this week the White House is cracking down on colleges for so they will improve how they handle sexual assault complaints.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:29 pm
America is deeply silly.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:29 pm
Other than Ben Rhodes and the White House politicos, who else was suggesting that there were demonstrations in Benghazi? The CIA didnt. The State Dept didnt. The people on the ground didnt. Nobody thought there were protestors and demonstrations at Benghazi because there werent protestors and demonstrations in Benghazi.
JD (b9a5f3) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:32 pm
Hey dudes, there is no tracking device on the President. Cool.

That rug pulls the whole room together.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:33 pm
Hillary is on record about the demonstrations I believe

She’s married to the first president we’ve ever had of which there’s legal documentation about the herpes legions what are prone to form from time to time on his penis.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:34 pm
Seriously though, he’s a weasel, with oak leaf cluster;

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email–may-1–2014.html
narciso (3fec35) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:36 pm
Narcisco – Hillary’s high ranking staffers knew it was a terrorist attack a loooooong time before she lied in front of the returning caskets.
JD (b9a5f3) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:38 pm
Baghdad Jay Carney dissembles again!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:41 pm
CNN and MSNBC are joining in the Carney beat down.

Unsustainable spin conjuring at work.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 10:17 pm
There is a disturbance in the farce:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/wh-tries-jedi-mind-trick-explain-smoking-gun-benghazi-email#.U2Fj2Rmvcvk.twitter
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 10:27 pm
It’s a vast FOX NEWS conspiracy. Better put Candy Crowley on the job, she’ll sniff out the facts.
ropelight (031e3e) — 5/2/2014 @ 4:11 am
15. Or at least the odd truffle.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 5:41 am
Candy Crowley needs to do some very serious self reflection and apologize profusely to a whole lot of people–first to Mitt Romney and then to all of America, I think. Then she should retire to spend more time with her family and raise orchids and go on Atkins.

Her overt interjection while “moderating” the presidential debate was unprofessional and unforgivable. By doing that, she helped minimize Benghazi at an early stage–and helped tamp down a true investigation of Benghazi when it would have most mattered– and contributed to the re-election of the unruly Obama kindergarten.

Jay Carney has turned himself into a laughing stock pretzel clown. But “journalists” like Crowley are much more dangerous.
elissa (dc627d) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:23 am
Maybe if Carney is laughed out of his spox box Candy can take his place. She’s proved her qualifications.
ropelight (031e3e) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:27 am
“Duuude… that was two years ago… Brawndo has electrolytes.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:33 am
This is an administration that’s proud of its ~~transparency~~ Idiocy.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:35 am
Down the memory hole:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/flashback-al-qaeda-coalition-group-held-massive-military-parade-in-benghazi-weeks-before-consulate-attacked-video/
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 10:03 am
O.M.G.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/breaking-house-to-open-special-investigation-on-benghazi-scandal-led-by-rep-trey-gowdy/
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 10:04 am
gary – But Obama just finished saying at the Democratic National Convention that Al Qaeda was on the run.

What most people have only learned recently, however, was that Obama and his cronies in another “too clever for dumb, ordinary Americans figure out” mind trick were defining Al Qaeda as the core leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were completely excluding, somehow without embarrassment or hoping to avoid discovery or embarrassment, affiliates or spinoffs or those pledging loyalty in the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, Iraq, Northern Africa, other places in Africa and elsewhere.

Just another piece of brazen fabulism from the Obama Administration to portray the word as they wished it to be rather than face reality.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 10:23 am
7.Comment by JD (b9a5f3) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:32 pm

Other than Ben Rhodes and the White House politicos, who else was suggesting that there were demonstrations in Benghazi? The CIA didnt.

They didn’t? What do you mean they didn’t?!!

Who do you think wrote all of the versions of the taking points??

At 3:04 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012, it was still “attacks in Benghazi”

By 4:42 pm the word “attacks” was changed to “demonstrations”

Both versions were circulated by the Chief of Media Relations at the CIA Office of Public Affairs.

There is no e-mail, or leak, that anybody outside the CIA was responsible for that change in wording.

Now maybe somebody objected to the word “attacks” but I don’t see that in the emails released last year.

Look, Jay Carney isn’t exactly interested in clarifying what happened.

He’s perfectly content for nobody to be able to find a conspiracy theory that fits the facts.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 11:29 am
No Benghazi questions for Obama today. Shocka!!!!!!!!!!!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 11:36 am
“Who do you think wrote all of the versions of the taking points??”

Sammy – Wrote? You mean served as scribe taking input from all of the interested parties. Derp.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 11:41 am
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-of-benghazi-e-mails/

The second CIA change was to the swap out the word “attacks” with “demonstrations” in the first bullet point, which an administration source said was to eliminate an awkward and illogical account of events.

This has all the emails, but it’s hard to use unless you can download it.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 11:50 am
Sammah – your idiocy is tyresome
JD (e2ab8a) — 5/2/2014 @ 11:51 am
It’s kind of tiresome that nobody wants to listen.

Jay Carney (or his handlers) are quite happy to have everybody barking up the wrong tree.

He’s almost taunting people that they won’t be able to find a conspiracy theory. And they won’t, the way they are going.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:03 pm
“ROGER SIMON: Benghazi: American “Liberalism” and the Mainstream Media on Trial.”

Indeed!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:04 pm
CNN|| BREAKING NEWS: Jay Carney quite happy to have everybody barking up the wrong tree.

and

Pope says Boko Haram founds Catholic nunnery franchise.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:11 pm
By the way, notice that they are still sticking to the video story: That the protest in Cairo was about a video, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report also stuck by that.

The CIA does not want to say any of their intelligence was wrong.

That the assault in Benghazi was about a video was the claim made by the attackers, and the New York Times also obtained and reported the same intelligence in 2012: (not just in December 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

Of course this was the cover story, but it was the cover story told by the perpetrators.

And the only way this cover story could have been available, is if they knew days and weeks in advance that there would be a controversy about a specific video; and the only way they could have known that there would be a controversy about the video, is if they uploaded it themselves to the Internet.

And probably were responsible for existence of the video in the first place!! As narciso has indicated is quite plausible.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:17 pm
Here also: The CIA drafted it: (front page article in the November 29, 2012, New York times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/africa/with-focus-on-talking-points-benghazi-attacks-big-issues-fade.html?pagewanted=all

C.I.A. analysts drafted four sentences describing “demonstrations” in Benghazi that were “spontaneously inspired” by protests in Cairo against a crude video lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. (Later assessments concluded there were no demonstrations.) The initial version of the talking points identified the suspected attackers — a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, with possible links to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an offshoot of the terrorist network in North Africa.

Numerous hearings were held – nobody blamed anybody outside the CIA.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:24 pm
Sam, buddy boy, Trey Gowdy is the man you want to address your theories to, a prosecutor with 16 years experience.

This case is just too deep, the intrigue just too complex, for us ‘tards to really appreciate the fine points you address.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:29 pm
Van Jones vs. Honey Badger on CNN about Pooter just now. Wish I didn’t have to go.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:32 pm
Baghdad Jay is at it again, unable to see or escape the bus rolling through the parking lot behind him.
htom (412a17) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:40 pm
New York Times, October 18, 2012, page A16:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0

What were American intelligence agencies saying about the attack?

¶ Administration officials later explained their statements by saying they had repeated preliminary information they had learned from intelligence briefings. The director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., lent some support to the administration’s claims by approving the release of an unusual public statement on Sept. 28 about the evolving conclusions of the intelligence agencies. His spokesman, Shawn Turner, said intelligence analysts who at first believed that the attacks were part of a spontaneous protest revised their initial assessments “to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

¶ What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?

¶ According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.

No planning, and therefore they didn’t miss anything. That was their story, and probably still is.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:48 pm
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 11:41 am

You mean served as scribe taking input from all of the interested parties. Derp.

And where is there anybody in the e-mails released last year saying that instead of attacks, they should say there were demonstrations??

If somebody outside the CIA did that, they used a hidden back channel, or the telephone, and they were lucky nobody left a clue in what was released.

And where has there been a single leak blaming any of that on the White House??

Instead, everyone has claimed that there was SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE backing up the claim that the attacks were unplanned and spontaneous, whether they defended the reliance on the intelligence or lambasted it..

Front page New York Times story October 22, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE, in other words.

And that doesn’t include what “intelligence partners” said.

Here is the DNI (Clapper) claiming the same thing:

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-by-the-odni-s-director-of-public-affairs-on-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi

In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.

What “information?” SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE!!

If there was no information at all, but this claim was made up out of whole cloth, do you believe that nobody at the intelligence agencies would have complained to the intelligence committees or the media?

Not one whistleblower?

The real scandal is that such intelligence was taken as the most authoritative, and that, afterwards, there was no Presidential shake-up at the CIA.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 12:49 pm
A veritable Sammynado…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 1:44 pm
Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:34 pm

Hillary is on record about the demonstrations I believe

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/live-coverage-clinton-testifies-on-benghazi-attacks/

Mr. Brooks repeatedly asked Mrs. Clinton whether Ms. Rice’s statements about whether the Benghazi attacks were sparked by an anti-Muslim film were “factually accurate.”

“That is not the weight of the evidence right now,” Mrs. Clinton said.

As she did during the earlier Senate committee hearings, Mrs. Clinton defended Ms. Rice.

“We don’t know all the motivations,” Mrs. Clinton said. She added later, ” I will say that all of the senior administration officials, including Ambassador Rice, who spoke publicly to this terrible incident, had the same information from the intelligence community.”

“There was evidence, and the evidence was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 1:56 pm
“And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”

What investigation? Where are its results?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:13 pm
“The real scandal is that such intelligence was taken as the most authoritative, and that, afterwards, there was no Presidential shake-up at the CIA.”

Sammy – To what intelligence are you referring and why would there be a shake up at the CIA if they were merely incorporating edits demanded by the White House and State Department to the talking points?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:17 pm
Remember that Ben Rhodes is a PR flack on National Security for Obama, not an analyst and he’s copying other PR flacks and political operatives on his email for spin control.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:30 pm
“The real scandal is that such intelligence was taken as the most authoritative, and that, afterwards, there was no Presidential shake-up at the CIA.”

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:17 pm

Sammy – To what intelligence are you referring

For one thing, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all

Also, “Libyan authorities” and “intelligence partners” (see the first version of the “talking points)

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

• We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

and why would there be a shake up at the CIA if they were merely incorporating edits demanded by the White House and State Department to the talking points?

Because that’s not what happened.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:37 pm
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:30 pm

Remember that Ben Rhodes is a PR flack on National Security for Obama, not an analyst and he’s copying other PR flacks and political operatives on his email for spin control.

But in these private e-mails, he’s saying there’s a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain, and they need to correct the record.

Is it all in code?

And Tommy Vietor writes there is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress who all think it was premeditated based on (earlier) briefings they got.

The tasking to “correct the record” comes from the NSC.

The actual “correction” came from the CIA.

It’s a correction. That’s why the talking points say “We believe, based on currently available information..”
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/2/2014 @ 2:44 pm
“But in these private e-mails, he’s saying there’s a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain, and they need to correct the record.”

Sammy – Friday he says there is a ton of disinformation out there. Saturday there will be Congressional briefings and Sunday Rice will lie to the world, so the White House has to fabricate and control the narrative.

This is not hard to understand.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 3:05 pm
Although I have to shave my forehead every morn, quoting and/or linking WaPo or the NYT is like reciting from Mao’s little red book to me.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 6:55 pm
ray shielding is the key;

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/05/02/watch-joe-scarborough-mix-donny-deutsch-benghazi/
narciso (3fec35) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:05 pm
“That is not the weight of the evidence right now,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Running from sniper fire while on an airport tarmac in Bosnia was such a traumatic event for her that it has excusably and understandably damaged her memory ever since then.

Only the most contemptible of liberals (hey, how ‘ya doing, Hillary! Hello, Barack!) would believe the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was (1) somehow triggered by a silly video posted to Youtube, and then — worse of all (or this speaks volumes) — (2) deem that as somehow justifying an excoriation of the filmmaker more than (or instead of) the terrorists. But hardly surprising. After all, that’s no more than a manifestation of the “blame America first” game that liberals love to play, or the ethos of “shed tears for the criminals, give a cold shoulder to their victims,” that such folks embrace.

breitbart.com, October 2012: Speaking to the “Lars Larson Show,” father of Seal Tyrone Woods — who died defending the consulate and Benghazi — told about his experience of meeting the President and Secretary Clinton at the memorial service for the fallen a few days after the attack.

Charles Woods said that the President “couldn’t look me in the eye” and “mumbled” an “I’m sorry” but that it didn’t seem “genuine”. He said the same of Secretary Clinton and that Clinton assured him that they were going to “arrest and prosecute” the man that made the scapegoated youtube video critical of Islam.
Mark (59e5be) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:22 pm
This is the same Carney, that lambasted Bush for his summer vacations in Crawford, whereas he finds new excuses for his own guy to be on the links,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:32 pm
Ben Shapiro with “The 6 Biggest Lies About Benghazi,” while Sammy regurgitates the Administration talking points and secret messages beamed directly to his subconscious:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/02/The-6-Biggest-Lies-About-Benghazi
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/3/2014 @ 10:42 am

5/1/2014

Carney Today

51 Responses to “Carney Today”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out