Once you finally accept the truth about Operation Fast and Furious, it is easy to see what White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney is really saying here. Fast and Furious, a program run by the ATF, with the approval of senior officials in Eric Holder's Justice Department, involved ATF agents instructing gun store owners to sell assault weapons to straw purchasers.
Despite these sales being illegal, the ATF required gun owners to make them under the pretense that the guns would be tracked. They intentionally weren't tracked; they were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico and right into the hands of people the ATF / DOJ knew would use them to murder innocent people.
Thousands of them went across the border, on purpose and for one purpose. That purpose was to use the subsequent murder victims - to include children - to create the political climate for gun control generally and assault weapons in particular.
Here is a direct quote from Carney's January 15th press conference, via RCP [my translated comments of what Carney likely meant are in bold brackets]:
"If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already [If Fast and Furious whistleblower John Dodson hadn't come forward, we could have blamed gun store owners for the deaths of Border Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican nationals]. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already [Fast and Furious was very carefully planned and, as you can see, circumstances beyond our control caused it to blow up in our face. You'll also notice we had to stonewall for two years and rely on the President to assert Executive Privilege. You think an assault weapons ban is easy? Think again.]. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals [The president has been committed to this issue since he was elected. Fast and Furious began in 2009. How much proof do you need?]. He is not naive about the challenges that exist [The president only pretended to be naive about Fast and Furious for the last two years but he's really not], but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions. [Uh, Fast and Furious is responsible for the deaths of far more children than was the Sandy Hook but we can't exploit Fast and Furious because it was our fault]."
To watch the video of Carney making the aforementioned comments, click HERE.
Here is Carney reading part of a related statement.
Perhaps it's time for CBS to reconcile some inconsistencies in its reporting about when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice received her talking points on the Benghazi attack. Given that Rice's appearances on five talk shows on 9/16 have become a focal point, it might be more than just a little warranted here.
First, let's go back to a November 15th CBS report. In particular, take note of the very first paragraph, which says:
CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Here is the screenshot:
Now, how about the most recent CBS report, published on November 20th? It claims that Rice received her talking points on September 14th:
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.
This may seem like a matter of splitting hairs but given the sensitive nature of the timeline between 9/11 and 9/16, it's a bit relevant to find out exactly when Ms. Rice received those talking points, is it not? After all, two significant things happened on September 14th. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pointed to the now infamous anti-Muhammad video in the daily press briefing that kicked off before Noon and Hillary Clinton was at Andrews Air Force Base as the four murdered Americans arrived. While there, Hillary talked about the video being responsible.
We now know that was demonstrably false and that Hillary gave that false information at quite an unseemly time and place. According to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL and CIA who was among the four who were murdered, Clinton told him that the filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.
So, CBS, when exactly did Susan Rice receive her talking points?
An unbelievably ridiculous narrative is being pushed that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is being targeted by old white guys because she is black and female. Forget the fact that she gave the American people false information five times on September 16th. That's not relevant. The Morning Joe panel is the latest place where you can find this egregious argument.
At the November 14th press conference, Barack Obama reacted strongly to a question about Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her demonstrably false talking points on five September 16th talk shows. In response, Barack Obama urged the Senators to go after him instead of Rice while saying she had nothing to do with Benghazi (the logical follow-up question to that wasn't asked) and that the White House sent her onto those talk shows.
Frankly, McCain and Graham should take Obama up on this offer for a few reasons. First, according to CBS, these CIA talking points were altered prior not just to Susan Rice uttering them on September 16th but before Jay Carney seemed to make the same case on September 14th, that the Benghazi attack was a result of the anti-Muhammad video. Second, as the official mouthpiece for Obama, going after Carney would equate to doing exactly what Obama suggested those two old, white, male Senators should do - go after Obama. Third, by going after Carney instead of Rice, Graham and McCain cannot be accused of attacking him over his race or his sex; he's as white and male as they are.
Then again, perhaps Rice was traipsed out to all of those shows for a moment such as this - the race and gender cards. Her making demonstrably false statements is irrelevant, apparently.
As a direct result of the November 16th testimony given to House and Senate Intelligence committees by former CIA Director David Petraeus, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has come under the public spotlight. Everyone wants to know who altered her talking points prior to her five Sunday show appearances on September 16th, five days after the attack in Benghazi. According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Petraeus told the committee that the original CIA talking points made specific reference to al-Qaeda involvement. Rice's talking points did not.
CBS News reported that the talking points prepared for Rice were issued on September 15th. Petraeus briefed both Senate and House Intelligence committees on September 13th and 14th respectively. After his November 16th testimony, King told reporters that Petraeus insisted that he always knew that it was a terrorist attack that involved al-Qaeda elements. The congressman said the recollections of both himself and Petraeus about the September 14th testimony were different. King remembered Petraeus saying the attack arose from a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. Petraeus' recollection was that he knew it was a terror attack.
Again, here is what King said after Petraeus testified on November 16th. Take note of what King says about the CIA talking points going through a "long process" that involved State and DOJ:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Petraeus' recollection was correct and that on September 14th, he testified that there was al-Qaeda involvement in the attack and that it wasn't caused by a video. We're to believe then, that he delivered CIA talking points. If Petraeus delivered the unchanged CIA talking points on September 14th, that "long process" likely would have begun sometime thereafter, taking approximately 24 hours to be given to Susan Rice.
Hang on a second.
At precisely 11:42am on September 14th, the daily White House press briefing began. During that briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney - not just the voice of the administration but of the President himself - said this:
Here is the corresponding portion of the transcript via RCP:
JAKE TAPPER: Wouldn't it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?
JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But, Jake, let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.
TAPPER: At Benghazi?
CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary, that we know of, or to U.S. policy.
Again, if Petraeus was truthful with the committee on November 16th, that the CIA knew almost immediately that the attack was not "spontaneous" or in response to a video and that he relayed that information to the Senate Intelligence committee on September 13th and to the House Intelligence committee on September 14th, then Jay Carney lied. This is significant because Carney gets approved talking points from the President. Again, Rice is the voice of the administration while Carney is the voice of the President specifically.
Now, back to King's assertion that the CIA talking points went through a "long process, involving many agencies". Taking Petraeus at his word on November 16th, that he issued CIA talking points to congressional committees on September 13th and 14th, how did they go through such a lengthy process quickly enough for Carney to enunciate the new talking points before lunch on the 14th?
So, Rice was given her altered talking points on September 15th but the voice of the president had them by the morning of September 14th.
The question that needs to be asked is not who altered Susan Rice's talking points but who altered Jay Carney's talking points one day earlier?
This smacks of racism and sexism by the way. The black, female, U.N. Ambassador is being hung out to dry by the administration while the white, male, press secretary is getting a pass.
**UPDATE** CBS News is now reporting that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reviewed the talking points before they were given to Rice and the House intelligence committee:
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.
Uh, are my eyes deceiving me or did the date that Rice received the talking points change? Does this mean Clapper reviewed the talking points on the 14th or that they were given to Rice on the 14th? CBS no less, reported on November 15th that Rice received the talking points on September 15th:
CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier.
So which is it? Was Susan Rice given the talking points on September 14th or on September 15th?
Incidentally, James Clapper is the guy who told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular". This is relevant because that lie speaks to his credibility:
It has been learned that Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods actually disobeyed orders to stand down in Benghazi. At great risk to his personal safety as well as to his career, he went into harm's way to rescue his fellow Americans. In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Tyrone's father Charles talked about his son's decision to ignore an immoral order - if not an illegal one. He then stated that those responsible for not acting are cowards who are guilty of murder.
At a different point in that interview, Charles Woods said the following:
“I Do Not Appreciate Cowardice, And I Do Not Appreciate Lies.”
It would appear that we have a teachable moment for some of the military's top brass. As the weight of selfless nature with which Tyrone acted really began to take hold, it became blatantly obvious that there are instances - albeit rare - when honor demands not following orders. The Nuremberg trials and the subsequent Nuremberg Defense provide the most extreme and obvious example.
What Tyrone Woods did in Benghazi is unabashedly antithetical to the Nuremberg Defense. Though the order to stand down may not have been illegal, it was at a minimum, quite immoral. Woods understood that and everyone with a sense of right and wrong knows that he exhibited the highest possible level of honor while disobeying an order. He deserves every Military honor that can be bestowed upon him for his bravery. His legacy will endure.
Contrast the actions of Tyrone Woods with those of then Secretary of the Army, General George Casey on November 8, 2009, three days after the Jihad attack on Fort Hood. During an appearance on ABC This Week, Casey said the following about the motivation for the attack:
"I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society and that gives us all strength so again, we need to be very careful with that."
Here is the full interview (relevant portion at the 4:50 mark):
Since then, those words have aged like a very bad wine. They were wrong then and that reality is even more blatantly obvious now. The attack on Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan was an act of jihad and it was an act of war. To this day, the survivors of the attack are under great duress not just because of what they went through but because of what their government refuses to acknowledge. Every soldier killed or wounded that day should be the recipient of a Purple Heart as well as any benefits that come with being killed or wounded in combat. Instead, because Hasan's actions have been identified as 'workplace violence', none are eligible.
With his words on 11/08/09, Gen. Casey helped to contribute to that reality today. Here is a video released earlier this month that features the Fort Hood massacre's survivors:
The question that came to mind as Casey uttered such shameful words was:
Did he believe what he was saying or was he saying what his superior (Barack Obama?) told him to say?
If it was the latter, he was following a directive that ordered him not to be honest with the American people. That is immoral and Casey should have resigned before speaking those words.
One of the questions that needs to be asked about Benghazi is:
Who told U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney to lie to the American people when they pointed to a video as the cause of the attack?
Their doing so would constitute following an order. Following an order to lie is an immoral act. Like Casey, both Rice and Carney should have resigned instead of committing it. Yet, career preservation (or an ideological agenda) was more important.
People like Tyrone Woods don't just subjugate their careers to do what's right; they subjugate their very existence to it. Consequently, their legacies are far more lasting. In this regard, the contrast between him and individuals like Casey, Rice, and Carney could not be more stark.
This video clip illustrates perfectly why so many people don't do the right thing:
Now we're learning that a spokesman for the CIA (David Petraeus) has issued the following statement:
"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
One has difficulty believing that this statement is consistent with Obama's wishes, which would mean Petraeus could be ignoring an unlawful / immoral order to either say nothing or accept responsibility for something his agency didn't do so that the president can be protected.
If so, Petraeus is taking the right path.
Time will tell.
Note: If Petraeus has just removed the CIA from the mix of culpability when it comes to orders to stand down, that leaves Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta.
One of the unintended consequences of CNN moderator Candy Crowley running interference for Barack Obama at the second debate is that because her bias was on full display, the issue over which that bias revealed itself - Benghazi - is becoming a central point of focus. In attempting to diminish the scandal, Crowley appears to have called more attention to it.
White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked to respond to a four page letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inquiring about claims that the State Department refused requests by the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi for more security. Carney would not comment.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on an assertion by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that requests from diplomats in Libya for added security prior to the September 11, 2012 attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, were denied.
“I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI,” Carney said.
Earlier today, chairman of the committee Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chair of the subcommittee on national security, homeland defense, and foreign operations, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asserting that “multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 (2012) attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these requests by officials in Washington.”
The two congressmen also listed thirteen incidents leading up to the attack – ranging from I.E.D. and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.
That October 2nd letter sent to Hillary Clinton by Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and member Jason Chaffetz is quite damning if the accounts of 13 separate incidents or threats to the consulate in Benghazi are accurate. Ditto if the consulate requested additional security and did not receive it. In fact, these claims may be so damning that an Obama administration stonewall could very well make things worse, especially after nearly two years of stonewalling on Fast and Furious which, in many ways, is similar to what happened in Libya.
Both involved the issue of waivers and whether or not the State Department made the right call relative to those waivers, both involved the issue of guns, and both involved the deaths of U.S. Government officials. The primary difference seems to be that Fast and Furious put guns into the hands of bad guys and the State Department appears to have kept guns out of the hands of good guys.
Regarding the issue of waivers... CNN reported recently that the State Department issued a security waiver that prevented the Benghazi consulate from being secure. That waiver would have made it unnecessary for the consulate to have barriers, a safe room, or multiple layers of armed security.
Contrast that with this exchange between Rep. Connie Mack and Hillary Clinton at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in October of last year. Note the issue of a waiver that was required to be issued by the State Department in order for the Department of Justice to legally export weapons to Mexico (Fast and Furious). If Hillary said a waiver was issued, her Department would be on the hook for those weapons going to Mexico. If she said no waiver was issued, it would have implicated Holder's Justice Department.
It would appear that when it comes to the consulate in Benghazi and whether or not waivers were issued, Carney is choosing the same course of action that Hillary did last year in response to questions about Fast and Furious.
With all the talk about whether any speech against Islam should be criminalized, perhaps we should look at the upside of freedom of speech and possibly one of the reasons it rankles the Obama administration. That would be freedom of the press. For more than a week after the act of war committed against a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed - including our ambassador to that country - White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted that the attack was the result of a crudely made video in the United States.
Here is a montage of Carney's responses to questions about the attack. These excerpts take place between 9/12/12 - 9/19/12.
Freedom of speech in general - and freedom of the press in particular - obviously dogged Carney and the administration. It helped force both to admit the truth.
That truth?
The attack on our consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack. On Air Force One - at the end of the above video - Carney admitted to a press gaggle that very thing, saying it was "self evident". Even NBC news had to report that because it came straight from the administration's mouthpiece.
Without freedom of the press, the Obama administration could have continued to further the lie that the attacks were spawned by an anti-Muhammad video. That could lead to shifts in policy that actually serve to further an anti-free speech agenda, which many leaders in the Muslim world have. Egypt's Mohamed Mursi and Turkey's Foreign Minister seem to share in that agenda.
Can you imagine a press corps. challenging the likes of Mursi over such matters?
The Obama administration is likely quite roiled at the fact it has egg on its face as a result. Had it been allowed to let such a lie take root as fact, the first amendment to the Constitution they all took an oath to protect and defend would have been in even greater danger; the conditions for policies that could potentially criminalize criticism of Islam would become even more ripe.
The irony is that as frustrated as administration officials may be at the press for dragging them to the truth, in so doing, the press actually helped to protect the first amendment rights of those same administration officials.
Accountability is uncomfortable but that doesn't make it any less right.
