The kiddie crew that represents (or formerly represented) Obama-Kerry has certainly been rattled by the Rhodes document discovery. Here's State spokeslady Marie Harf to AP's Matt Lee today:
So, the State Department, via their spokesperson, believes that many Republicans and even a few journalists like Jake Tapper and Sharyl Attkisson are 'not reasonable' people. Sounds a little desperate. Perhaps they are actually now afraid that Boehner's elevation of the issue will force the rest of the reluctant media into covering Benghazi now, which was a master stroke, if so.
And that brings us back to Matt Lee. He's never been one to ask many questions on Benghazi, sitting silent for months while Fox reporters peppered the various State spokesperons with probing questions. Oddly enough he was mentioned in the same document dump with Rhodes for corresponding privately with former spokeslady Victoria "F 'em" Nuland about a UK Independent story that said the administration had 2 days of warning about the attack. Fox picked up on that report, but it was almost certainly not true, and Lee was only pointing it out.
In watching him for a long time he doesn't appear the type to put on a show for the cameras while hiding his official secret Karl Marx decoder ring in the background. His questioning today was certainly not as snarky and dogmatic as usual, so maybe he felt compelled to tiptoe into the deep end and ask some questions to remove the egg. Or maybe he's just a good reporter. With these mainstreamers it's never a sure thing...
2 comments:
Hopefully we will get some straight answers with Trey Gowdy in charge. No 5 minutes of bloviating from the "questioners", we will see. Will anyone be held responsible? I'm doubting it. I want to know who made the decision NOT to give the ambassador extra security that he requested, who made the decision NOT to send help when the attacks started, and WHO came up with the story of the video. They should all be prosecuted.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
The questions I have will probably not be answered for 50 years (if a Repub was in office they would already answered).
There is a political angle on this for some on the right, like Graham. He probably knows more than he will say. If what he knows is that certain Republicans were aware of what was going on and aren't saying, knowing the Dems can't say because it's classified, well that's crap.
My curiosity is whether the admin tried misleading the public to win an election. The why of Benghazi is not likely to be told, but the political cover-up can be, and should be.
Post a Comment