Obama administration called out on Benghazi narrative by... CNN?

The issue of whether the attack on our Benghazi consulate was the spontaneous result of the anti-Muhammad film or a planned terrorist attack has all but been put to bed. The issue that hasn't been put to bed is why the Obama administration chose to enunciate the false talk track and not the true one - that it was indeed a terrorist attack.

Reports are in abundance that the CIA knew the truth within 24 hours. Yet, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows 120 hours after the attack and repeatedly pushed the notion that it was spawned by the video.

CNN, the network that brought us the contents of Ambassador Christopher Stevens' diary seems to be asking some tough questions. In the exchange below, between Erin Burnett and her network's foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott, we learn that Labott's intelligence contacts told her the CIA knew within 24 hours that the attack on the consulate was coordinated. Yet, somehow the CIA is being expected to take the fall for Rice's comments several days later?

Burnett also asks a very prescient question toward the end of this exchange. Specifically, why wasn't Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the one making the rounds on the 9/16/12 Sunday shows instead of Rice? After all, Stevens was Hillary's employee and the consulate where he was housed was an extension of the State Department, which is out of Rice's purview. Labott essentially says that Hillary's political seasoning and experience likely told her that telling the lie was untenable, she knew it, and someone other than her needed to push it.

On a side note, using the mainstream media's standards for conservatives, why isn't it considered racist to protect Hillary by sending Rice, who happens to be black, out to lie when it was Hillary's lie to tell?

Instead, the buck stops with the... U.N. Ambassador?

Via CNN (h/t Hot Air):



Rice's role in this particular instance is reminiscent of Jim Carrey's role with Globodyne. Sent out to spin the un-spinnable, Carrey takes the fall in much the same way Rice seems to be doing.

Ignore Ralph Nader... if you can.



Now that the lie about the Benghazi attacks being the spontaneous result of an anti-Muhammad film has become all but proven, another question that must be answered is why it was told in the first place. There very well may be several reasons, like spiking the bin Laden football at the DNC, five days before the attack but there's a more nefarious possibility - the same motive the Muslim world has for telling the same lie.

Attacking our first amendment right of free speech.

Let's not forget this exchange between Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General over the Civil Rights division, back in July. I've posted this before but in light of Rice's words being demonstrably false, coupled with their being congruent with the Muslim Brotherhood's narrative that the video was responsible, this exchange is perhaps a bit more timely: