White House Defends the Indefensible Post-Benghazi Narrative

What we now know about the post-Benghazi narrative that the Obama Administration tried to create is nothing short of stunning. On Friday, ABC News reported that the talking points produced by the CIA underwent 12 different revisions with significant input coming from the State Department, which was run by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
[…]
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”  The draft went on to specifically name  the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to defend the talking points during a press conference on Friday and even went so far as to call the focus on Benghazi a “distraction from the key issues.”

Of course, apologists for this administration can’t seem to understand why there has been so much focus on Benghazi? These are the same people who rightly criticized the Bush Administration for lying about WMDs in Iraq, but scream “partianship” when Obama faces criticism. They would have had us believe, who knows for how long, that the terrorist attack on the American outpost in Benghazi wasn’t a terrorist attack at all.

While this may or may not be an impeachable issue, there was gross negligence on part of the administration in advance of the attack and a willful attempt to mislead lead the American public. Whether or not it takes down a former administration official who has aspirations for higher office is completely irrelevant. There has to be some measure of accountability.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.