Thursday, May 01, 2014

Why Talking Points?

Re the Rhodes revelation, it's basically a Captain Renault moment.  Sharyl Attkisson was run out of CBS for trying to connect a dot that tied the "CIA" talking points to someone in the White House--the someone  who briefed Rice. But answers bring more questions. 

For instance, feel free to ask Jay Carney why the memo was heavily redacted the first time it was sent to the Congress--redacted because according to Jay Carney it didn't pertain to Benghazi, even though it mentioned Benghazi.  Feel free to ask why it was classified after the fact.  Or why the White House later sent an un-redacted version of this formerly classified unrelated document to conservative nutcake Larry Klayman in response to his specific FOIA demanding documents pertaining to.....Benghazi.   Ed Henry from Fox News asked, and was told he was involved in a vast right wing conspiracy or something. 

If there's a conspiracy it's probably centered around why they released the damn thing now after not releasing it for so long.  The easy answer is that it was to protect Hillary by getting it out of the way now instead of 2016. Since State handled the request it's tempting to go there but rumor has it Kerry wants to run for president, too.  So just sayin.

Of course if either of the above are true that might mean the White House was knee-capped by someone in State.  Watching Carney overreact to the few tough questions he's getting is a tell--clearly he's flustered by this coming back up by the way he's furiously generating counter-attacks on the GOP like a wind-up toy.  His comical pushback now is that the Rhodes memo addressed the big ball of turbulence known as protests across the Muslim world while ignoring that little F5 tornado hidden in the middle of it at Benghazi, the same tornado Susan Rice was sent on 5 Sunday shows to explain.   

That dog is not hunting in conservative circles, but it shouldn't hunt anywhere.  First off, somebody should ask Carney why they picked one scenario over the other as 'the best intelligence available', a scenario that just happened to comport with Obama's political goals, while ignoring the other 'best evidence' coming from people on the ground--and the president of Libya--who were saying it wasn't about a protest or video at all.  The biggest lie is their choice of narratives as representing the best intelligence when it clearly didn't.

Maybe somebody could also ask Carney why they needed any damn talking points in the first place.  Why didn't they get someone to come on TV familiar enough with the attack to explain it straightforwardly instead of sticking to a pre-approved script?  Someone like oh, the Secretary of State?  Or Prez Man himself. Oh, right, the SoS doesn't like Sunday shows.  Using that excuse should be grounds for having your ass banned from any future positions of leadership.  In the real world at least. 

Meanwhile the media circus flails while bigger questions remain unanswered.  Why did State deny the extra security to their ambassador?  Has that ever truly been answered?  He said he was on an AQ 'hit list'. What was CIA doing in the 'annex' other than looking for shoulder-fired missiles?  No, we will not be told for decades, but did it have anything to do with Mohammed Zawahiri?   He was the one CNN pegged as starting the Cairo protests in an effort to get the Blind Sheikh released.  Interesting that Cairo threw out the Brotherhood a year or so later, putting both Morsi and Mohammed back in jail and straining relations with the US.

Why was Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11 talking to a Turkish diplomat with a light detail?  Researching a John LeCarre storyline for a future book?   Or were the findings of this group relevant?  Questions not asked.

A reporter did bother asking Carney what the administration knows about the attack now, ie, who do they think perpetrated it and how close are they to bringing anyone to justice, which Carney again deferred to Justice because "it's an ongoing investigation".

So after all this time we still don't know very much except that the administration tried to spin a narrative to protect something, likely politics due to the election, unless it was something worse.  And we don't know who did it or when they might be caught.  And any questions about it are shut up, Fox News, racist loon and 'dude, it was like two years ago'.

No comments: