Gay Patriot Header Image

No one to blame for Obama Team Misrepresenting Benghazi Attack?

Perhaps the appeal of Twitter is that often pith makes the point better than a well-crafted, thoughtfully argued essay.  Last night, Glenn Reynolds, whose Instapundit blog, proudly produces pithy commentary on the events of the day linked this tweet from Ari Fleischer:

Irony: Bush Admin accepted CIA talking points on WMD. CIA was wrong. O Admin altered CIA TPs on Benghazi. CIA was right.

Highly doubt we’ll see as much scrutiny of the Obama administration’s altering the talking points than we will of the Bush Administration’s acceptance of such points.

Odd how some accused Bush of lying for accepting the CIA talking points, as if the fault lay in his office and not in the erring agency.

Interesting how so few bother to inquire into the Obama administration’s decision to alert the CIA talking points, as if the fault lay in the ether for the erring administration officials.

Share

11 Comments

  1. In Progressive World, if the Facts contradict the Narrative, the Facts must be wrong.

    Comment by V the K — May 9, 2013 @ 10:47 am - May 9, 2013

  2. V, this is where the meme “fake but accurate” applies.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 9, 2013 @ 10:54 am - May 9, 2013

  3. Also, I bet you somewhere a mid-level DNC aide is trying to frantically connect Benghazi to Dubya.

    I’m not kidding. These people are worse than scum.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 9, 2013 @ 11:07 am - May 9, 2013

  4. Greg Gutfeld said it best, “The media are Obama’s scandal condom.”

    Comment by V the K — May 9, 2013 @ 11:59 am - May 9, 2013

  5. Here’s another interesting comparison of how the CIA is treated by the State-Run Media in terms of Iraq versus Benghazi:

    Let’s say you are President George W. Bush in early 2003, just months after the terror attacks on September 11 and the anthrax letters sent to Congress.

    The Clinton Administration had incited Osama bin Laden, citing ties to Saddam Hussein, and had bombed a suspected bio-weapons plant in Sudan with ties to Iraq. (It turned out to be an aspirin factory, but you don’t know that.)

    Intelligence suggests that terrorists met with others in Prague. UN weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. Don’t forget that Saddam had invaded Kuwait a decade before, and he had used chemical weapons on his own people.

    One of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombings had taken refuge in Baghdad. Families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq to create a sense of instability in the region.

    British intelligence says Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. CIA Director George Tenet (originally appointed by Clinton) tells you it’s “a slam-dunk” that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

    The French are opposed to war with Iraq, but also say that their intelligence service believe Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. Russian President Vladimir Putin is also opposed to war with Iraq but also tells you that Russian intelligence believes that Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the US.

    In other words, three separate intelligence sources from three separate nations have told you – in no uncertain terms – that Iraq has WMD.

    However, since you don’t have boots on the ground, and most of the CIA contacts in Iraq are murdered, you are still not sure about this intelligence.

    Incidentally, in the Duelfer Report before Congress in October 2004, this UN report shows that France, Germany and Russia were being bribed by Saddam Hussein in the “Oil-for-Food” scandal before and after 9/11 in order to have UN sanctions lifted.

    This meant that if Saddam got the sanctions lifted and he was able to play again with no one watching, he was going to get WMD again — even nukes.

    Now, here are your choices as leader of the free world:

    1. Do you wait to get more spies in the country to confirm the other intelligence?

    Or:

    2. Do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use the force to prevent another terrorist attack on the U.S. based upon the same intelligence provided by four different sources?

    The State-Run Media thwarted Bush at every turn when he implemented choice #2. They claimed the CIA was “misled” by bad information.

    Now, the Obama regime has altered the CIA’s talking points on Benghazi. Where is the MSM now?

    We already know how this turned out, folks. But people who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 9, 2013 @ 2:40 pm - May 9, 2013

  6. with regard to weapons of mass destruction, how much would you need to find. seems to me a couple of fifty five gal. drums of sarin gas or anthrax would do just fine. that would be pretty easy to hide. i don’t think you need to fine a cache the size of idaho to prove they saddam had them.

    Comment by tommy651 — May 9, 2013 @ 8:19 pm - May 9, 2013

  7. Even the most hardened zealot should see the difference between going on talk shows and going to war.
    Going to war cost 4,400 US soldiers dead, 330 allies dead, at least 100,000 civilians dead and at least 1.1 Trillion dollars. NOT comparable at all.

    Even if Obama personally directed folks to alter anything OR even if he personally ordered folks to not assist (neither of which is known to be a factual statement at this time) to compare the two is a tad despicable.

    Comment by mike — May 9, 2013 @ 11:45 pm - May 9, 2013

  8. Shorter mike “What difference does it make?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 10, 2013 @ 8:49 am - May 10, 2013

  9. Oh, mike, bless your heart.

    And you are correct that it is despicable to compare the two.

    Bush went with the information he had and tried to make what he felt was the right decision.

    Obama deliberately lied for weeks, to the US people, to the UN, to everyone, about a youtube video because he was worried about how it would influence the election. And what, no love for the poor man in jail for that video? At least he has the distinction of being the first Political Prisoner of the Administration, right?

    I love how no one should be allowed to criticize poor Obama because “b-b-but Bush!” And yet none of these rumpswab apologists for Obama is talking about how unfairly Nixon was treated ….

    Remind me, mike — since we’re on body counts. How many people died because of Watergate as opposed to Benghazigate?

    Can’t wait to see the double- and triple-jointedness of the reply to that …

    Comment by acethepug — May 10, 2013 @ 12:09 pm - May 10, 2013

  10. To a liberal mind, subverting the Presidential election through a web of lies and distortions is OK as long it results in a liberal winning the election.

    To a liberal mind, ordering the reduction of security forces in Libya after a year-long unremitting stream of pleas for enhanced security is OK if it supports a liberal President’s meme that his personal killing of bin Ladin dismantled terrorist groups and thwarted any chance of future successful attacks.

    To a liberal mind, leading from behind is OK when attacking a dictator and decapitating his regime to create a power vacuum in a nation known as the 2nd largest provider of jihadists fighting in Afghanistan.

    To a liberal mind, it is OK not to take into account the anniversary of 9/11 coupled with escalating terrorist attacks in Libya and roiling unrest in other North African states when aligning US military quick reaction forces in the region. It is also OK to have no forces on stand-by that can respond in less than 22 hours(!) and a Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that nothing could have been done because the attacks on the facility in Benghazi did not adhere to our military’s 24 hour planning period. It is OK to cripple our air assets ability to launch in Southern Europe by positioning all our airborne refueling aircraft in Britain.

    Where is ANY ACCOUNTABILITY?

    Wow! Just wow!

    Comment by in_awe — May 10, 2013 @ 12:14 pm - May 10, 2013

  11. Also, I bet you somewhere a mid-level DNC aide is trying to frantically connect Benghazi to Dubya.

    I knew it – THEY ARE:

    Carney added that the Obama administration’s transparency on the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath has been “extraordinary,” and “especially unusual with regard to our predecessor.”

    Here’s the link:

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/10/romney-to-blame-for-gop-focus-on-benghazi/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+TIME%3A+Swampland

    These scumbags have no shame whatsoever.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 11, 2013 @ 3:15 pm - May 11, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.