White House: GOP Focus On Benghazi Tied To Mitt Romney (With Transcript)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fended off a barrage of questions on Friday afternoon over the Obama administration's public statements in response to last year's Benghazi attack.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

White House press secretary Jay Carney answers questions during a press briefing at the White House on May 10, 2013

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fended off a barrage of questions on Friday afternoon over the Obama administration’s public statements in response to last year’s Benghazi attack, saying Republicans are following Mitt Romney in politicizing the tragedy.

“From the hours after the attack, beginning with the Republican nominee’s unfortunate press release, and then his statement the day after, there has been an effort to politicize a tragedy here, the deaths of four Americans, to try to suggest that even though the President called it an act of terror, even though the Ambassador to the United Nations referred to possible responsibility not just by extremists but possibly by al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda affiliates, that we were somehow not talking about that, when the publicly available evidence proves the opposite,” Carney said.

An ABC News report Friday revealed emails from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, in which she objected to a paragraph in the Administration’s talking points following the attack that mentioned links to al-Qaeda and prior CIA warnings about terrorist activity.

In November Carney told reporters that “the White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.” Asked whether the administration wishes it had said or done something differently, Carney replied, “No.”

On Friday, Carney claimed that all revisions to the official talking points were made outside the White House, except for that single semantic change, putting the pressure on Republicans — and Romney. He did not deny, however, that White House officials were involved in discussions about the talking points before and after the changes requested by Nuland.

Repeatedly, however, he did suggest that Republicans were repeating a mistake made by Romney during the 2012 campaign.

“The Republicans, again, [are] in 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—in a move that was maligned even by members of his own party,” Carney told reporters. “And from that day forward, there has been this effort to politicize it.”

Carney was asked no less than 30 questions about the attacks.

A full transcript of the briefing follows below:

CARNEY: Good Friday afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here. I appreciate your patience.

Before I take your questions, I just wanted to note, because it’s been reported, we — we did, as many of you know, have a background briefing here at the White House earlier. I think 14 news organizations were represented, ranging from online to broadcast TV, print and the like. And we do those periodically. We hope that participants find them helpful.

I will say that no one here believes that briefings like that are a substitute for this briefing, which is why I’m here today to take questions on whatever issues you want to ask me about.

And with that, I will go to the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thanks, Jay. Two subjects, starting out with the IRS issue. IRS said that (inaudible) conservative groups with names like “patriots” or “tea party” (inaudible), and said that in some instances (inaudible) inappropriately (inaudible) and it has apologized.

When did the White House become aware that the IRS engaged in this? And in a tax collection system that relies on trust, isn’t the IRS’s credibility at stake here? And will the White House, as called on by Senator McConnell, call for an investigation?

CARNEY: Well, two things, Jim. I appreciate the question. And we’ve certainly seen those reports. My understanding is this matter is under investigation by the I.G. — the — at the IRS. The IRS, as you know, is an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees. The fact of the matter is, what we know about this is of concern and we certainly find the actions taken, as reported, to be inappropriate. And we would fully expect the investigation to be thorough and for corrections to be made in a case like this.

And I believe the IRS has addressed that and has taken some action, and there’s an investigation ongoing. But it certainly does seem to be, based on what we’ve seen, to be inappropriate action that we would want to see thoroughly investigated.

QUESTION: Even if the president was critical of some of these groups both in 2010 and 2012, isn’t it natural for the public to think that these things are politically motivated? What assurances (inaudible)?

CARNEY: Well, I think that, first of all, two things need to be noted, which is IRS is an independent enforcement agency, which I believe, as I understand it, contains only two political appointees within it. The individual who was running the IRS at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration.

But separate from that, there is no question that if this activity took place, it’s inappropriate and there needs to be action taken. And the president would expect that it be thoroughly investigated and action would be taken.

QUESTION: On Benghazi, and with all due credit to my colleague on the (inaudible), we now have e-mails showing that the State Department pushed back against talking point language from the CIA and expressed concern about some of the information would be used politically in Congress. You have said the White House only made a stylistic change here, but these were not stylistic changes. These were content changes.

So, again, what role did the White House play not just in making, but in directing changes (inaudible)?

CARNEY: Well, thank you for that question. The way to look at this I think is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible.

In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee.

And that process, as is always the case, again, led by the CIA, involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in or a stake in the process.

And that would include, obviously, the State Department, since it was a State Department facility that was attacked and an ambassador who was killed, as well as three others. The NSF, the FBI, which is the lead investigation — investigating authority, and other — and other entities.

The CIA, in this case deputy director of the CIA, took that process and issued a set of talking points on that Saturday morning. And those talking points were disseminated. Again, this was all in response to a request from Congress.

And the only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from referring to the — the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from consulate, because it was not a consulate, to diplomatic post.

I think I’d refer to is as just diplomatic facility. I think it may have been diplomatic post.

But the point being it was a matter of a nonsubstantive, factual correction.

But 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, and is always appropriate.

And the — the effort is always to — in that circumstance, and with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information, some of it accurate, some it not, about what had happened and who was responsible, to provide information for members of Congress and others in the administration, for example, who might speak publicly about it, it was based on only what the intelligence community could say for sure it thought it knew.

And that is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA.

QUESTION: This information that was information that the CIA obviously knows about prior attacks and warnings about those, does the president think that it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how Congress might use it?

CARNEY: Well, first of all, the CIA, you know, was the agency that made changes to the edits — I mean to the talking points and then produced the talking points, first of all.

Second of all, 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 is — cannot be confirmed, speculation about who was responsible, other things, like warnings that may or may not be relevant to what we ultimately learn about what happened and why.

All of that information, by the way, was and remains part of the investigation. It’s information that’s provided to Congress and to others looking into this matter last fall and throughout the winter and into this year.

And that investigation continues.

But on the substantive issues of what happened in Benghazi, and at that time what the intelligence community thought it knew, that was reflected in the talking points that were used, again, that weekend by Ambassador Rice and by others, including members of Congress.

And I think if you look at — at the information that’s been reported, you can see that evolution.

And it was — the talking points were focused on what we knew and not speculation about what may or may not have been responsible or related.

I would also say that all of this information was provided months ago to members of Congress, a fact that we made clear to all of you at the time.

During the confirmation process for John Brennan, as director of the CIA, there was a request for more information including e-mails around the deliberating process involved in producing these talking points, and this administration took the rather extraordinary measure of providing those e-mails to members of the relevant committees as well as the leadership members and staff in Congress.

And that information was available, again, in late February to members of Congress, and through March. And once that information was reviewed, in the case of the Senate, Republicans, a number of whom went on record saying, “Well now I feel like I — I know what I need to know,” then allowed the process for the confirmation of John Brennan to go forward, and he was confirmed in early March. QUESTION: Since you bring it up, why were those e-mails in a read only fashion?

CARNEY: It is, I think, a standard procedure for administrations of both parties going back decades that internal deliberations are generally protected — is generally protected information that is not something that is regularly shared with Congress, and then that’s begin to allow for a deliberative process in the executive branch — in this case — to answer just these concerns that members of Congress had — in particular, Republican members of Congress, that step was taken, and provided.

And they were — they were able to review all of these e-mails, which they have, of course, now leaked to reporters, but they were able to review all of these e-mails for as long as they wanted, take extensive notes if they chose — if they chose to. And, again, once that process was completed, the confirmation of John Brennan went forward.

A number of Republicans came forward and said that they felt like they had the information they needed about that aspect of the Benghazi incident, and it’s only now for what I think is, again, reflective of ongoing attempts to politicize a tragedy that took four American lives, you know, we’re now seeing it resurface together with, you know, sort of political assertions by Republicans that ignore the basic facts here.

There was an attack on our facility in Benghazi. The intelligence community provided the information that it felt comfortable providing for public dissemination to members of government, Congress and the administration.

As we learned more about what happened, we provided it. That’s why everybody has received the information that it has throughout this process. From the — one of the things I think is interesting about the points is that from the very beginning there was included in the points the — the statement about demonstrations taking place outside of the building and the facility in Benghazi. That is what the assessment — the consensus or collective assessment of the intelligence community was. At that — from that there was spontaneous attacks launched against the facility.

And when we found out that that was not true, when the assessment changed, we made that clear. And that was going back, if you remember, when we had this discussion back in the fall, that was the point that Republicans were focusing on, and, yet, it is clear from what you see in these documents that, that was the assessment made by the intelligence community and it is also clear from every — the evolution of what public officials said about what we knew, that as we got more concrete information and information that we felt confident about, we provided it to the press, to Congress and the public.

QUESTION: The substance of these e-mails would suggest — or have very specific exchanges between State Department official and officials here at the White House (inaudible) in which the State Department official raises concerns about providing talking points that would include a mention of Al Qaida because of a concern that Congress would use that against the State Department (inaudible).

CARNEY: I think that’s actually not — I think you need to — the State Department has said that the spokesman’s office raised two primary concerns about the talking points. The points went further in assigning responsibility than preliminary assessments suggested and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation. That concern was expressed in other quarters, not just at the State Department.

QUESTION: (inaudible) specifically concerned about giving members of Congress something to use against the State Department.

CARNEY: Well, again, this was a process where there was an effort underway, an interagency process to develop information that could be delivered by government officials, both congressional and administrative — administration officials, about what we knew, and not going beyond what we knew.

So, the assertions…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: The language of that e-mail is pretty clear and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying “we want to address Victoria Nuland’s concern.” No matter who ended up providing the talking points in the end, it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the White House and the State Department on the CIA talking points.

CARNEY: But again, I think you’re — you’re conflating a couple of things here. The White House, as I said, made one minor change to the talking points drafted by and produced by the CIA, and even prior to that made very few — had very few inputs on it.

The other discussions that went on prior to this in an interagency process reflected the concerns of a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue, both the FBI because it was investigating; the CIA, obviously, and other intelligence agencies; and the State Department because an ambassador had been killed and a diplomatic facility had been attacked. And what I think the concern was is that these points not provide information that was speculative in terms of whether it was relevant to what happened. And the — what could not be known at that time was the relevance of issues about warnings. You know, there’s the discussion about, you know, the Republicans, again, in 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 — in a move that was maligned even by members of his own party.

And from that day forward, there has been this effort to politicize it. And if you look at the issue here, the efforts to politicize it were always about, you know, were we trying to play down the fact that there was an act of terror and an attack on the embassy. And the problem with — has always been with that assertion is that it’s completely hype, because the president himself in the Rose Garden said this was an act of terror.

And he — he talked about it within the context of September 11th, 2001. He talked — and then, you know, we had other officials in the administration refer to, you know, this as a terrorist act. Susan Rice when she went out on the Sunday shows using the very talking points that we’re discussing now talked about the possibility. We knew that — we believed, based on the intelligence assessment, that extremists were involved, and there were suspicions about what affiliations those extremists might have. But they were not — there was not hard, concrete evidence.

CARNEY: And so Ambassador Rice in those shows talked about the possibility that Al Qaida might be involved, or other Al Qaida affiliates might be involved, or non-Al Qaida Libyan extremists, which I think demonstrates that there was no effort to play that down. It was simply a reflection of, you know, we did not and the intelligence community did not, and others of us in the administration did not jump to conclusions about who was responsible before we had an investigation to find out the facts.

QUESTION: So was concern about how Congress would react a factor in what went into the pot (ph)?

CARNEY: Again…

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: … if you look — if you look at the development of the talking points, the answer to that is no, because the talking points reflect the intelligence community’s assessment of what happened.

And all of the other issues about who was responsible, what specific organizations may have participated, what information was available or threats were known about the situation in Libya or in Benghazi, specifically, I mean all of that was part of an investigation and was, again, provided to Congress and — and, as we learned more, to the public by the administration.

April?

QUESTION: Jay, wouldn’t you say this is a minor change — a minor change in venue (ph), because the wording was changed in venue (ph). Why such a big deal today? With this deep background, deep, deep background, off-the-record briefing, it makes it seem like…

CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear, it wasn’t off the record. And — and that was in a running (ph) report.

But the — well, it is a big deal because Republicans have chosen in the latest iteration of their efforts to politicize this this to provide, you know, leak this information to reporters, information that we provided months ago to some Republican lawmakers from the relevant communities — committees and Republican leadership as well as Democratic.

And, you know, there’s an ongoing effort to make something political out of this. But the problem with that effort is that it’s never been clear what it is they think they’re accusing the administration of doing. Because when it comes to who was responsible, we were very open about what we knew — what we thought we knew, what we did, for a fact, know, and the fact that this was an ongoing investigation and we would certainly learn more that would change our view of what had happened in Benghazi.

QUESTION: Understanding that, but it seems like there’s been evil (ph) attitude about it. If there was such a minor issue, why not just tell the president, you did from the podium, just give it himself, instead of having this background briefing with a select few and not the whole (inaudible), if it’s such a minor issue?

CARNEY: Well, again, I think I’ve talked — I’m here, right now, to take your questions about this issue and — and we have background briefings periodically and 14 news organizations were represented. And, you know, that’s something that administrations do regularly, or both parties.

And — and, as I said at the top, it’s not a replacement for this briefing and that’s why I’m here taking your questions.

(inaudible)?

QUESTION: Jay, how you build from a conversation that was apparently happening between various administration officials, various officials of this government on September 14th, and in those e-mails, in that e-mail exchange, there’s a discussion about a group, Ansar al- Sharia.

And then after Victoria Nuland raises concerns on — on the part of the State Department, that references to that group are then removed from the conversation and don’t make their way into the talking points?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: That is not a stylistic edit. That is not a single adjustment, as you said back in November. That is a major dramatic change (inaudible) information.

CARNEY: No, I appreciate the question and the opportunity again to make clear that the CIA produced talking points that was a result of an interagency process on the morning of — that Saturday morning. And then, and to that…

QUESTION: But when you say…

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Let me just finish this and then I’ll — and then I’ll, you can follow it.

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Then they produced — and from that we…

QUESTION: … and from pressure from other parties that were involved…

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: I think I — I was pointing to the numerous statements by the top officials at the CIA, making clear that they wrote the talking points, that they believed that those talking points represented what they knew to the best of their knowledge at that time and did not include things that they could not be concretely sure of.

Ansar al-Sharia is a — is a good example. If you remember, in the wake of these attacks, there was an initial claim of responsibility by that group, and a lot of people rushed out and said, “Well, this is the group that’s responsible.”

Then that group withdrew the claim of responsibility. Now neither is dispositive. That is why it needs to be investigated. So what we knew was not concretely for sure that group was responsible at that time, but we knew extremists were participants, and that is what the talking points said.

And again, the idea…

QUESTION: (inaudible).

CARNEY: Jim, if I could — the idea that saying extremists is somehow hiding the ball, I mean, does anybody in this room not understand that extremists in Libya means the kind of people who would attack a U.S. diplomatic facility?

QUESTION: But if you go back to what Susan Rice was talking about during those talk shows, there — there — she may have left open the possibility of extremists, but this is an all together different thing.

CARNEY: Well actually, Jim, as I just said (inaudible) Sunday shows, she talked about Ansar Al Sharia, she talked about the fact that they may be responsible. She talked about the fact that Al Qaida could be responsible or other Al Qaida linked affiliates.

So what she did not say is that we know for a fact that they’re responsible. That’s why in the — the basic talking points, again, all about talking points, not about the facts of the investigation or all of the information that has been provided to Congress in countless hearings, countless pieces of information — documents that have been provided — 20,000, 25,000 pages of documents — this was just the talking points that were the baseline for what public officials, beginning with members of Congress, that’s what they were developed for, but also provided to Ambassador Rice, and then she spoke beyond that based on, you know, what could be true as opposed to what we knew to be true.

QUESTION: Just a follow up, once and for all. You are comfortable, still comfortable. CARNEY: You promise?

Once and for all?

QUESTION: Well, maybe not.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: But you are comfortable with the way you characterized this back in November, this was a single adjustment, yes, it may have been the White House that made a single adjustment, and perhaps it was the CIA drafted these talking points, but that is sort of glossing over the fact you had all of these other parties involved. These are not stylistized edits, Jay. This is very much a content-driven change.

CARNEY: Well let me — let me — let me just make clear.

I do stand by that when we were talking about the talking points produced by the CIA and provided to members of Congress on the intelligence committee in the House who asked for it and others as well as folks in the administration that, that document — there was a suggested edit that was accepted by the White House. And that was a change from — you know, to make it factual.

The calling of the building in Benghazi a consulate because it was not a consulate, to diplomatic post or facility. I can’t remember which. But prior to that, you know, there had been a lot of discussion and iteration — iterative process where this was — the various issues were discussed about what could be said publicly, what we know and what we’re just speculating about. And that process could involve a whole bunch of agencies.

It is also the case it did not involve — the White House involvement was very limited and non-substantive. But the issues you mention had to do with limiting the talking points to what we knew as opposed to speculation about what may or may not, in the end, be relative to what happened in Benghazi.

QUESTION: Jay, you told us the only changes that were made were stylistic. Is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in Benghazi?

CARNEY: Well I appreciate the question, again, and I think that what I was referring to was the talking points that the CIA drafted and sent around to which one change was made, and — and I accept that ‘stylistic’ may not precisely describe a change of one word to another, but semantics…

QUESTION: Jay, it was not the change of just one word (inaudible) extensive changes after they were written by the CIA. These were concerns that were raised by the State Department the White House directed the interagency process to — to — to use in making these talking points.

CARNEY: Well, I think we’re getting…

QUESTION: The CIA’s original version included references to Al Qaida, references to Al — Ansar al-Islam (ph). It — the CIA — the original CIA version included extensive discussion of the previous threats of terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Those were taken out after the CIA wrote its initial draft.

CARNEY: And then the CIA wrote another draft, at the…

QUESTION: Based on input from the State Department.

CARNEY: Well, but here’s — here’s what I’ve been saying, John…

QUESTION: Yeah, I know.

CARNEY: No, John, what I’m saying is — and I’ve answered this question several times now, but I’m happy to answer it again, if you’d let me answer it.

And that is that there was an interagency process, which is always the case, because a lot of agencies have stakes — have a stake in a matter like this — the investigative agency, the CIA, the intelligence agencies, the — the State Department in this case, the national security staff.

And everybody provided information and comment. And then on Saturday morning, the CIA said, you know, we’re going to take a crack at drafting these points based on what we know.

And the things that you’re talking about, again, don’t — don’t go to the fundamental issue here, which was what would — could be said concretely about what we — what the intelligence community knew to be true? Not — not that some people thought it was Ansar al- Sharia (ph), some people thought it was other Al Qaida affiliates or other Libyan extremists.

So we knew it was extremists. So we knew that — we believed we knew that extremists had participated.

There was also the belief by — from the beginning by the intelligence community in these points, that there had been protests out of which the attack occurred, protests in response to the demonstrations that were in Cairo at our embassy that were in response to that video.

That turned out not to be the case, but it — but it — it demonstrates the fluidity of the information, the fact that it was hard, and continues to be hard in an investigation to know concretely, especially in the first days afterwards, what happened.

And that’s why we were so careful to say, here’s what we know or we believe we know. And, every time we said that, we fully expect this information to change as we learn more, and it did. And we — we provided it.

And, again, the whole — the whole effort here by Republicans to find some hidden mystery comes to nothing because the president called it an act of terror. The ambassador to the United Nations, that very Sunday that has caused Republicans so much concern talked about the possible involvement of Al Qaida and hence Ansar al-Sharia (ph).

The — you know — all of this is a distraction from the key issues. A diplomatic post was attacked by individuals in Libya, in Benghazi. Four Americans lost their lives. From the beginning the president has committed all the resources of this administration, of this government, to finding out who was responsible and to bringing them to justice.

He also very clearly, together with the secretary of state, said we need to make sure that we find out what went wrong, what problems there were with security that allowed this to happen, to hold people accountable and to make the necessary changes so that it doesn’t happen again.

And that process happened. It was stood up by the secretary of state. It was a process led by two of the most experienced and widely regarded figures in national security in Washington, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and Ambassador Tom Pickering. Nonpartisan, serving both parties for the different administrations.

They conducted an extensive review of this. They said they had access to all the information they needed; they had information to all the people they needed to talk to.

And they produced an unsparing report with a series of very critical observations and very — and very serious recommendations, every single one of which the State Department has adopted. So, that’s the way the system should work and it worked that way because the president and the secretary of state insisted that it work that way.

QUESTION: Jay, can we come back to what you said. You said that the only changes that were made by either the White House or the State Department were stylistic and a single word. What we see here is that the State Department raised objections about the references to Ansar al-Sharia. They raised objections to the fact that the CIA had warned about terror threats in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Those subjects were taken out of the CIA talking points at the direction of the White House based on the objection…

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: First of all, they weren’t under the direction of the White House. The only — this process, as everybody who was an equal play in this process said, you know, everybody’s concerns have to be — have to be listened to and taken into account. But ultimately, these were intelligence community talking points that the intelligence community, led by the CIA, had…

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Can I finish? You’ve had a long time there — that the intelligence community has to sign off on and believe represents the intelligence community’s view of what they knew at that time about what happened. And again, this would be more significant if we didn’t acknowledge from the beginning that extremists were likely involved; if we didn’t acknowledge from the beginning that it could very well have been Ansar al-Sharia that was involved or Al Qaida itself or other Al Qaida affiliates.

This is an effort to accuse the administration of hiding something that we did not hide. In fact, we spoke publicly about it. The secretary, I mean the ambassador to the United Nations, who was the lead administration official talking about this that weekend, spoke openly about that possibility. And every bit of information that’s come out about what we know happened in Benghazi has been the result of information provided by various agencies of the administration.

This investigation, in fact, continues to this day. Just last week, the FBI released photographs of individuals that they believe might be connected to the attack on Benghazi in their effort to bring those people accountable. That’s the important business that remains to be done when it comes to Benghazi.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: When — when you said what you said, did you know that this had gone through 12 versions and that there had been extensive changes made? Were you aware of that at the time?

CARNEY: There’s always a deliberative process. There is always input by agencies. What I — and I knew that. And what I also knew was that the CIA on Saturday morning said, “We’re going to draft these points.” They drafted those points and those points were delivered virtually unchanged with the exception of the one change I mentioned, to members of Congress and to the administration for use.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (inaudible) do you acknowledge that your initial characterization of the White House’s involvement was to some extent a mischaracterization of the extent to which the White House was involved in the evolution of those talking points?

CARNEY: I think (inaudible) it’s important to examine now the information again that we provided Congress months ago, which they have chosen for political reasons to leak today, which is their prerogative, I suppose. But the fact is, the White House’s involvement to the talking points that were generated by the CIA that Saturday was to make a single change — suggest a single change. By the way, we suggest — the White House suggests a change; everybody signs off or doesn’t. Because it was a matter of fact, I think people were fine with it.

And, you know, even prior in the deliberative process that I was referring to that John (ph) was talking about, the White House involvement in the actual — in any changes that were made to the so- called talking points was extremely minimal and non-substantive.

QUESTION: Well, why not come forward initially and say, “Friday night, White House officials were involved in the interagency process (inaudible).” Why not offer that information (inaudible) at the start?

CARNEY: Again, look, there was no intent here to do anything but answer the question, which the questions were related to: Did the White — this was the Republican accusation that everybody was very excited about at the time — that, did the White House change the intelligence community’s assessment of what happened? Did the White House tell the intelligence community to say that there were demonstrations?

And, the underreported fact of all the revelations today is that these documents bear out what we said all along.

The answer is no.

The answer is no.

QUESTION: Jay…

QUESTION: Speaker Boehner, I have a few more questions.

Today, Speaker Boehner has asked for — that he release the e- mails. And according to our sources, House officials are also asking that they get more documentation about the Saturday September 5th (ph) (inaudible) meeting at the White House.

Will you release those additional e-mails and documents?

CARNEY: Well, I think they’re asking for e-mails that they’ve already seen, that they were able to review and take extensive notes on, apparently provide verbatim information to folks, so I think — including the speaker’s house, and maybe he’s unaware of that…

QUESTION: Just one more on the IRS.

Is the president concerned about the allegations and will he make sure that those who are involved are held accountable?

CARNEY: Allegations of what? Sorry?

On the?

QUESTION: The IRS story.

CARNEY: Well I think I made clear — I haven’t spoken to the president about that, but you can be sure if there was inappropriate conduct here that he would want it thoroughly investigated and what — you know, we would note tolerate that.

QUESTION: When did the White House become aware that the IRS was looking into the tax exempt applications of conservative…

QUESTION: I don’t have an answer to that specifically. I know that when the — you now, the I.G. began investigating it, you know, that he’s been investigating it for however long the IRS has said, but I don’t have a specific answer to that. It was — but what I can tell you is based on what we’ve learned today.

Two things. One, you know, the IRS has clearly taken action to correct us as clearly stated from, you know, the leadership of the IRS that this is inappropriate and unacceptable behavior. And we concur with that. And we would expect a thorough investigation and for all the necessary corrections to be made.

QUESTION: Conservative groups were complaining about this all through the period between 2010 and 2012. Was the White House aware of that then?

CARNEY: Of what?

The complaints?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Yes. (inaudible) that they were being targeted by the IRS.

CARNEY: I — I don’t have any information on that. I think they were public reports, but I don’t — you should refer — I would refer you to the IRS. I don’t have information about that.

QUESTION: And then they’ll call some reporters on the Hill for a Congressional investigation? CARNEY: Again, I think the IRS is an independent agency. The inspector general is an independent investigator and — and that office is investigating this and — and that entirely appropriate.

QUESTION: Jay, I think Speaker Boehner’s office they know — they have seen the e-mails. They wanted them to be released to the public, at least the unclassified ones. Is that something the White House will do?

CARNEY: Again, as I mentioned at the top there is a long precedent here for, you know, protecting internal deliberations. This is across administrations of both parties. And we took the extraordinary step, which is unusual, and in fact, I think especially unusual with regard to our predecessor, of providing these e-mails in camera so that the relevant committee members and their staffers as well as leadership members could review them, take notes, spend as much time with them as they like.

And that was an extraordinary step, because it was demanded by Republicans as part of what they were asking for and during the confirmation process for John Brennan. And I would remind you that in response to that, a number of Republicans said they felt they had gotten the information they needed.

The Brennan nomination moved forward, and he was confirmed.

QUESTION: But wouldn’t it just help clear up I guess for people who still have a lot of questions about what exactly…

CARNEY: But here’s the thing, we’ve provided this information to the committee. This is — the fact that the very people who’ve reviewed this and probably leaked it, you know, generally speaking, not specifically, are — are asking for something they’ve already had access to, I think demonstrates that this is what it was from the beginning in terms of Republican handling of it, which was a highly political matter.

From the hours after the attack, beginning with the Republican nominee’s unfortunate press release and in his statements today, after there’s been an effort to politicize a tragedy here, the deaths of four Americans, to try to suggest that even though the president called it an act of terror, even though the ambassador to the United Nations referred to possible responsibility, not just by extremists but possibly by Al Qaida or Al Qaida affiliates, that we were somehow not talking about that when then publicly available evidence proves the opposite.

QUESTION: (inaudible) different subject?

CARNEY: Yeah (inaudible)

QUESTION: The House will vote again next week to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Speaker Boehner said it’s for the benefit of 70 new members who haven’t had a chance to vote on the Affordable Care Act. What’s your response? CARNEY: Well, I — I appreciate that, Wendell. I think that what I have said in the past holds true today, which is the now 40th attempt, I think — or 40th vote by the House of Representatives — and that’s a rough estimate — to repeal the Affordable Care Act will achieve nothing beyond what it has achieved in the past, which is nothing but, I suppose, a waste of time.

The Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. And we are implementing the Affordable Care Act.

And it just seems to me whether it’s this — the vote this week by the House of Representatives to (inaudible) on a measure that would prioritize debt payments — in other words, default by any other name; to basically accept a situation where they would tank the world economy if they didn’t get the tax cuts for the wealthy that they wanted, to make that, to pass that law, that doesn’t seem like a great use of time or representation of the — you know, what the American people want their members of Congress to be doing.

And then next week to — to go through the charade again of voting to repeal a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and that was passed into law and signed into law just seems misguided.

And what — it would be great, I think, for members of Congress to do would be to focus on the things the American people want them to focus on, like measure to help the economy grow; to focus on some of the things that the president was focused on yesterday in Austin, Texas, where he highlighted, you know, remarkable advancements being made in high-tech manufacturing, advancements that are helping build the economy of the future, where he announced an initiative to fund another innovation institute so that, again, we can develop these jobs for the middle class that are the jobs of the future and then to assist middle-class Americans in attaining the skills they need to fill those jobs and — and to ensure that those jobs pay the kinds of — kind wages that can sustain a middle-class life.

That’s — that’s what the American people are focused on and what they want. I think efforts to refight the political battles of the past are not looked upon kindly by the majority of Americans.

John Christopher (inaudible)?

QUESTION: As the British invasion continues — Monday, the Prime Minister David Cameron will be here meeting with the president. David Cameron met with Mr. Putin today in Russia. Aside from the discussions about the G-8 summit in northern Ireland in June, how much of this discussion will be on the crisis in Syria? And can you give us any more detail about the meeting and the topics that might be discussed?

CARNEY: Well, as is always the case when the president meets with Prime Minister Cameron, they will speak about a range of subjects. This is a relationship between our two nations that’s extraordinarily close. And we work and cooperate on matters across the international spectrum. The upcoming G-8 will, of course, be a topic of conversation. The United Kingdom is hosting that important meeting on the international economy. They will also clearly discuss Syria. They will probably discuss Iran. They will probably discuss the Middle East peace process and a whole host of other issues. That is always the case when these two leaders get together.

QUESTION: Thanks. I just want to follow up on some of the questions of the IRS (inaudible) political groups. Did anybody at the White House know that this was going on during the campaign?

CARNEY: I — I just — I have to take that question. I — you know, I just learned about it today. I think that the, you know, the IRS has addressed when it learned about — you know, at the headquarters level — when it learned about it and what actions were taken and the I.G. investigation. And so I would just refer you to the IRS.

QUESTION: But any sort of White House involvement or knowledge? You just can’t say at this time?

CARNEY: Again, I just — I learned about it today. And I don’t — I’ll have to take the question.

QUESTION: You said that the Republicans were being political about it. Is it not also political to say, “We want to keep something out of these talking points because we might be criticized by members of Congress”? Is that not a political motivation there?

CARNEY: Again, I think the State Department has addressed what the concerns of the spokesperson’s office were when that office engaged with a number of other agencies in discussions about, you know, what we — what they knew and what the various agencies knew and what was appropriate to include in public talking points.

And I think one of the concerns, as I said, was that we don’t put information in that would suggest by its inclusion was relevant to or determinative about who was responsible, when in fact we didn’t know that. As we learned more information, we provided it. And — and officials of the administration, including Ambassador Rice, openly engaged in conversations that allowed that it was possible that groups like Ansar al-Sharia might have been responsible or other extremist groups.

And remember that the issue at the time was, you know, was it, you know, were we somehow by including in the talking points the assessment by the intelligence community that there had been protests that led to these attacks outside the facility in Benghazi; were we trying to play down the fact that it was an act of terror. Again, a hollow claim when the president himself called it an act of terror; when the talking points referred to the participation of extremists. And I think everybody understands what “extremists” means.

You know, so I think the effort underway was simply to provide in those talking points the information that we — that the intelligence community felt confident it knew for sure, as opposed to information it could not be confident of. And that’s — I think that was what the CIA has said produced the points that they drafted.

QUESTION: (inaudible) to say, “Let’s not put this out because we’re not sure it’s true.” The phrase is, “Let’s not put this out because we don’t want to be criticized by our political opponents.” Is that not political in itself?

CARNEY: Well, again, I — I think the State Department has addressed the spokesperson’s office’s, you know, concerns about this, but they focused on, you know, not assigning responsibility prematurely before, you know, based on preliminary assessments that — by, you know, experience and definition were likely to change.

And that we not use language that was inconsistent with what, you know, the administration, that members of Congress not be deploying information about this that, again, wasn’t based on what we knew or believed to be true, or that other administration officials had been using.

CARNEY: You know, there’s an effort to focus everyone who was talking about this publicly on, you know, what the lead agencies here were — you know, the information they had, as opposed to speculating about who was responsible or what — what relevance there might be to the fact that there had been threats and warnings in Libya in general and in Benghazi specifically.

QUESTION: (inaudible) what you’re saying, sorry, I’m — in the background hearing you had earlier, you said, “Well, everybody does it,” basically. Republicans and Democrats, everybody has backgrounders.

You all came to town though saying you were going to be different, change the rules, be more transparent, don’t you think ti encourages the idea that you had something or your colleagues or whoever did the backgrounder, I wasn’t there, had something to say they didn’t want to say out here?

CARNEY: Not at all. There’s nothing that — I mean, that was an effort to — as we do periodically — to — to — to walk people through, you know, what we knew with granularity, which I’m happy to do for as long as you want here.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) record then, why did it have to be on background?

CARNEY: Well, I think, we — look again, Peter we — we provide information on background, but it is not a substitute for on the record, on camera briefings, where I will take any question you have and attempt to answer it.

And that’s what I’m doing.

QUESTION: But what purpose is there for doing it on background?

CARNEY: Again, to provide reporters with information and that we then follow up with the public briefing.

QUESTION: Did you provide that information from the background in this briefing (inaudible) today

CARNEY: I can — I can go into — mostly people ask questions, I can answer the questions. I — you know, I was able to, you know, listen to the briefing as well. And, you know, I think it helps me answer the questions that everybody here has. QUESTION: But do you think — do you think that you gave much of that information form that briefing — that background briefing today in your briefing today on (inaudible)?

CARNEY: The answer is yes, but — but my familiarity with the subject predates today, significantly.

QUESTION: Just overarching, looking back at — a lot of us were in the briefing room with you that day after the attack, is the president satisfied with the way the administration handled this?

Would you do anything differently?

Would does he want the administration to do something differently looking backwards?

CARNEY: I — I — no, I think that the administration has focused on what’s important here: Investigating what happened, working to bring those who killed four Americans to justice on the one hand, investigating what went wrong with security and taking steps to ensure that it never happens again.

And those two tracks have been pursued from the beginning at the president’s direction, and our effort has been to be — to provide as much information as we have when it’s available and when we feel confident that it’s accurate, and — and even then, and I think this is reflective of, you know, major incidents like this all the time, that the initial information may not turn out to be wholly accurate.

And we made clear from the very beginning that the investigation was just beginning, that as more information became available, we would make you aware of that, and that’s exactly what we did.

QUESTION: But to follow up on that because some of us were here that day talking to you, you talked right away about the video and I’m wondering when you’re saying now that you didn’t want to be speculative some of us then were wondering why you didn’t just wait and say there was an investigation.

So why — why are you saying the video…

CARNEY: Well, I was — I was…

QUESTION: … not speculative.

CARNEY: I was using — what I was saying was based on the — the points that the CIA had provided, just — just as Susan Rice had, and that’s what the CIA had — I mean, that’s — and I think it’s instructive, because at that time — and obviously there are different people thought different things, but the — the lead intelligence agency in this process decided that, that’s what it believed it knew at the time and that is what it provided to us as well as to members of Congress.

And, as that changed, we made clear that it — what’s that?

QUESTION: Don’t this series of e-mails now I suggest that your discussion of the video was speculative. You were cherry picking.

CARNEY: Well I think, again, you’re — no, because this — I mean, I would ask the CIA. The CIA — well, one thing that’s consistent throughout the material that, you know, was provided to John and others is that from the beginning that was in the — the talking points that the CIA was prepared to disseminate. And it was based on what they thought they knew at the time.

And I think the fact that parts of that — and really the only part of that that turned out not to be the case, which is that there were protests over the video that preceded the attack on the embassy, reflects how fluid information is and how risky it is to make — declarations about what we know to be true in the immediate aftermath of an incident like this.

But it is very important, actually, to stand back and look at that. The talking points that have gotten so much attention — and let’s remember that these are talking points, it’s not policies, talking points — to this day have been show to be wrong in only one instance, and that was the existence of demonstrations preceding the attack. Everything else about them was true, including the assertion that extremists might have been involved and the assertion that, as we got more information, we would — that this account would likely evolve and change and we would provide that information as we got it.

And so all of this, from the beginning, the Republican attempts to politicize this, has been based on that single thing which we corrected once we knew that it was no longer a correct description of what happened.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) health care (OFF-MIKE) because — have continued because that information was not put out.

CARNEY: Again, I don’t understand what you meant “that information.” Are you saying we should have overruled the intelligence community, I mean — that we relied on what they thought they knew. So did the member of the House Select Intelligence Committee. So did other members of Congress.

And — but we also made clear that it was preliminary information that was subject to change as more information became available.

QUESTION: (inaudible) point you just made (inaudible) you’re saying contradictory things. You’re saying that the first iteration of the talking points that the CIA drafted was what they thought happened, and the last version was what the knew happened.

CARNEY: No, in both cases, I think I said what they thought they knew happened.

QUESTION: OK.

CARNEY: And based on their assessment that’s what they thought they knew. But even then it was couched.

QUESTION: But so… CARNEY: And in all iterations it was couched. And — and, you know, there was a caveat that as more information became available the picture would likely change.

QUESTION: But by nature of the CIA signing off on each iteration of the talking points, they were perfectly fine with members of Congress or official discussing (inaudible) any of those versions that they signed off on. So why was it necessary to and why was it deemed necessary to then refer them back to not including certain information in the final draft version…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: … if they were perfectly fine with…

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: … the process began because the CIA got the request from the House Select — House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee. And they began the process of drawing up points.

And, again, as I’ve said, as that process evolved there was clearly inputs from other agencies who had a direct stake in this, including the FBI, the State Department, the national security staff and others, the ODNI. And, you know, when the CIA then redrafted the points on Saturday morning, it kept — it kept those points to what they believed they knew at the time based on the information…

QUESTION: Why?

CARNEY: I think — I’ve addressed that.

Again, there was no concrete determination — there were some people who believed it, some people who didn’t — concrete determination that Ansar Al-Sharia was responsible. There was no concrete determination that, you know, warnings about the threats that existed in Libya were or were not directly related to what happened in Benghazi.

All of those matters have been openly discussed in matters of investigation, but they weren’t what we knew or what the intelligence community knew to be true at the time. And, again, Ambassador Rice, who is — has been the focus of this in the use of these talking points and the — the very partisan focus of Republican complaints on this, openly discussed the possibility that, and even the likelihood that the extremists that we felt were involved might have some Al Qaida affiliation or some other affiliation to an extremist group, as opposed to just, you know, unaffiliated violent actors.

QUESTION: (inaudible) problem for the CIA to speculate about those things, why would they sign off on the first version for others to review?

CARNEY: Again, you’re talking about a draft process that involves a bunch of agencies offering their views.

QUESTION: (inaudible) if they’re not comfortable with going out there. I mean (inaudible).

CARNEY: I would simply say that the — I mean, here’s a good point. I think there was in one of the stories I read, and again these are documents that somebody — I don’t know who — on the Hill provided to reporters. But the — you know, one of the things that has been noted that was removed was an assertion about a warning from social media about potential demonstrations in Cairo.

Well, you don’t hear a lot of Republicans citing that, because that would have, if it had been included, reinforced the assertion that demonstrations preceded an attack in Benghazi; that those demonstrations were the result of reaction to the violent demonstrations in Cairo.

And I think the — the focus of these things was to write, you know, just what we knew or what we thought we knew based on the intelligence community’s best assessments, and that’s what (inaudible).

QUESTION: It’s coming up on eight months to the day since the Benghazi attack. The FBI, you know, just got around two-and-a-half weeks ago releasing three images of people they were looking for information for about (inaudible). Is the president confident that the FBI, you know, is capable of solving and finding the perpetrators? I mean, you said a few minutes ago ago that it’s a priority of the president. Is the president doing everything in his power to (inaudible) as well?

CARNEY: Absolutely. And I think that “just getting around to” is probably not a characterization that reflects the very hard work that the FBI is engaged in investigating this, working with other agencies of government as well as, obviously, authorities in Libya. And that process continues. And you can believe, and I think this president has a record to prove it, that he will keep focused on this until those who are responsible are brought to justice. And again, I think this president has a record that backs that up.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: You talked about the talking points being about what we knew or what the CIA believed it knew. The first few drafts says “we do know — we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaida participated in the attack.” This is not couched. It says, “We do know.”

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Right, and that — and you should direct those questions to the intelligence community, where obviously there were different inputs within the I.C. about what they thought they knew and what different people who provided information within the intelligence community thought they knew. And it was the assessment of the leadership at the CIA and those were were…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (inaudible) first, when they said they knew in their first draft (inaudible)?

CARNEY: I think it’s reflected that there was not concrete enough information and the head — the then-director of the CIA, or after he left the directorship, has testified on this, as has the — as did the acting director. And — and made clear that the points as they emerged and were disseminated on that Saturday reflected what they felt they knew; what they could say concretely based on their assessments.

And that’s what — you know, the intelligence community doesn’t deal in, you know, facts just picked off a shelf. They have to assess a wide variety of information. In a situation like what happened in Benghazi that was so chaotic, they had to base it on a variety of streams of information and they made the assessment they did. And even then, when being very cautious not to be beyond what they knew, they — you know, one of the points they made turned out not to be true.

And when that became clear, they corrected it, and we corrected it. And that’s — you know, in real time. And that’s how the public and the press became aware of it.

George, yeah?

QUESTION: Back on the IRS, I want to get your reaction to two things Speaker Boehner just said. He said that this echoes some of the most shameful abuses of government power in 20th century American history.

And then he asked if other federal agencies used government powers to attack Americans for partisan reasons.

He seems to be likening the — this White House to the Nixon White House.

CARNEY: Well, there’s so much I could say about that.

But the — all I will say is that this is a matter of concern and needs to be thoroughly investigated. As I understand it, it is being investigated by the inspector general that is responsible for the IRS, which is an independent enforcement agency.

And — and the activity, as described, is inappropriate. And — and that’s the view of this White House, and it should be thoroughly investigated and acted on.

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: I’ll do one more. Voice of America, because — yes?

QUESTION: Back to Syria. In his interview with NBC for a private journal on set (ph) (inaudible) just came right out and said, “I think one of the weapons that were used, which were one of our shells” (inaudible) similar shells, based on intelligence and interviews with people who come across the border.

I mean, do we have different intelligence to…

CARNEY: Well, we work cooperatively with a number of allies and partners, viewing (ph), assessing the situation in Syria on the ground and specifically with — in relation to this very important matter, the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

You know, what the president has said, and what we have said is that we have information that chemical weapons were used, but we do not have a complete picture about how that was used, who was responsible, what the chain of custody was. And, we need to build a case if you will about that use before we make policy decisions based on it (ph).

And I think that’s something that the American people would expect us to do, to be very deliberate about this, and to rely not just on an intelligence assessment — interestingly we’ve been talking about intelligence assessments and the fact that they evolve and sometimes in the first instance aren’t accurate — and we need to build on that.

In this case, we believe very strongly that the intelligence work done here has been very solid, but it is not the end of process, it’s closer to the beginning.

And, we’re continuing to work with our partners. We’re continuing to press for a United Nations investigation, but we’re not leaving it only to the United Nations, as I’ve said on several occasions, we’re working with our allies and partners and importantly with the Syrian Opposition to gather more information and evidence about chemical weapons use in Syria.

QUESTION: Thanks.

CARNEY: Thank you…

QUESTION: (inaudible)?

CARNEY: I think we’ll have to provide it.

Do I have it here?

Oh, yes I do.

(LAUGHTER)

CARNEY: OK, thank you all very much for reminding — Jim, as ever.

The schedule for the week of May 13th, 2013.

On Monday, the president will hold a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom at the White House. The prime minister’s visit will highlight the fundamental importance of the U.S.-U.K. relationship, through which, together we address a broad range of shared global and regional security concerns. Later on Monday, the president will travel to New York City for DNC events and a joint DCCC, D.S., C.C. event before returning to the White House in the evening.

On Tuesday, the president…

QUESTION: (inaudible) that was open?

CARNEY: I’ll have to get that information.

Yeah I believe one of them — my trusted deputy says one is open.

On Tuesday, the president will attend meetings at the White House.

On Wednesday, the president will deliver remarks at the National Peace Officer’s memorial service, an annual ceremony honoring law enforcement who were killed in the line of duty in the previous year.

On Thursday, the president will welcome Prime Minister Arawan (ph) of Turkey to the White House for meetings and a working dinner. The prime minister’s visit underscores the close friendship between the United States and Turkey and the strategic importance we place on broadening and deepening our relationship moving forward.

On Friday, the president will travel to Baltimore, Maryland in his second middle class jobs and opportunity tour event. More details regarding the president’s travel to Baltimore will be forthcoming.

QUESTION: (inaudible) or one by ones either with Cameron or…

CARNEY: You know, I don’t know the answer to that. We’ll get back to you when we have more details.

Thank you all very much.

20 comments
garya
garya

Jay Carney is the only person in the universe that believes Jay Carney. What an unbelievable jerk.

reallife
reallife

Dance Twinkle Toes, keep dancing

LOL


S_Deemer
S_Deemer

I listened to an interview with Ambassador Pickering this afternoon, in which he (in the most diplomatic terms possible) all but called Rep Darryl Issa a liar. Given their respective backgrounds, I would give far more credence to the Ambassador over an alleged arsonist and car thief.

benso033gm
benso033gm

Dear God.

I mean, with the economy (slowly!) recovering, and the annual debt dropping faster than anyone expected, we _understand_ that the Republicans need to have a Clinton-era-type faux scandal, but does the press really have to play along again?

Talking points were wordsmithed, and evolved as the available information evolved? The administration might have said "extremists" instead of "terrorists"? (except when they didn't?) Let's grill Hillary some more!

This was a tragedy. By definition, I suppose, security was inadequate. Lessons to learn? Sure.

But a scandal? Hardly. Do we really need to play this game again?

JohnDahodi
JohnDahodi

Hillary Clinton did accept the full responsibility of this coverup and
she must be punished too, rather than small flies, who cannot even fly
without her dictate. Thanks God, she is still not our President.
The best solution for this cover-up and BS is to make CIA/FBI independent body, responsible to the Supreme Court rather than the White House. These phony cooked reports from such secret agencies have invited unwarranted, illegal and horrible wars and killings including Iraq, Libya and Syria.

drudown
drudown

 Incredibly, the GOP asks the People to carry its heightened remorse over Benghazi, as if, in the end, the purported "misrepresentation" by the Obama Administration has prejudiced the People in any discernible fiscal or strategic sense. In stark contrast, the "misrepresentation" by the last GOP administration over purported WMDs has cost the People over $4trillion and so many lives that it makes the political theater surrounding four American deaths seem puny and trivial, which coincides with the comparison over Wolfowitz' "misrepresentation" that "the oil revenues will pay for the Iraq war." That is what is so ludicrous about the Benghazi red herring- it shifts attention away from the larger debate of whether a military presence in Arab states teetering on revolution is necessary and proper- so say nothing of addressing issues that arise out of fossil fuel dependence and ameliorating the adverse effects of climate change. 

Oh, and can someone- anyone- find those "missing" billions in Iraq? 

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

@benso033gm "Do we really need to play this game again?"

Republican fish gotta swim and Beltway hacks have to carry their water.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@benso033gm You would think they would have learned from the kick in the teeth they got when they tried to impeach Clinton.

drudown
drudown

@benso033gm 

Concur. 

Notably, there are ZERO adverse fiscal consequences that arise out of Benghazi.

Er, besides the waste of taxpayer dollars for these "fishing expeditions"...

drudown
drudown

@JohnDahodi 

Because I really think when you say "cover up" you are referring to Bush and Cheney flying out all the Saudi diplomats on 9/11 without letting the CIA/FBI question them...including Bin Laden's relatives...

So, yes, it was a "cover up" in the sense the GOP tried to blame Saddam for the Saudi attack.

drudown
drudown

@JohnDahodi 

You mean the "phony cooked reports" that Bush and Cheney purportedly relied on to justify the $4 trillion war/occupation? Or are you speaking to the egregious conflict of interest that Cheney's own company benefited from the State's actions predicated on "misinformation" he provided to the Congress. And I don't mean when Cheney said "deficits don't matter"

benso033gm
benso033gm

@drudown @benso033gm I don't give a rat's ass about the "fiscal consequences". Four people died in a terrorist attack. As Clinton herself put it, can we get past _which words were used_, and spend some time figuring out how to prevent something like this in the future?

JohnDahodi
JohnDahodi

In that case, the current election of SC judges for life time based on their loyalty to the political party also need to be changed. The SC judges must be selected by the superior court judges, based on their qualifications and years of service and maximum 7 years term.

drudown
drudown

@mantisdragon91 @JohnDahodi 

Tell me, which is a more egregious breach of duty by the GOP towards the People: (1) undermining our drone program; (2) undermining Executive privilege arising out of Benghazi; or (3) refusing to raise the tax revenue to pay for wounded/returning veterans and related benefits?

Sad, even.

ARTRaveler
ARTRaveler

You would have thought after 13 attacks during the Bush administration when 13 people died, the Republicans, who never investigated any of those,  would have beefed up the budget for embassy security but idiots like Issa cut the security budget so now he can act like the 3-year old grand inquisitor.  Maybe a few more need to call hima liar to his face and the press needs to start doing their job and not parroting the FAUX lies which are never truthful.

drudown
drudown

@benso033gm @drudown 

In short, you can't prevent random murders (i.e., regardless of whether political speech) at home or abroad...so what's there to "figure out"?

drudown
drudown

@benso033gm @drudown 

You sound like somebody crying after a shark attacked their son surfing off Santa Cruz. 

Sharks live there and eat people.

Radical muslims live in Libya and kill Americans.

Assumption of risk. They knew the risks. You erroneously imply the President could have "stopped" the random murders. I think you are confusing President Obama with W...you know, W had the FBI memo delineating how to prevent the death of 3,000 Americans. But keep going on an on about Benghazi...


Tell me, are you similarly "outraged" that W did not prevent the 3,000 deaths?