Carney’s answer is ridiculous. Of course the email bears more broadly on conditions across the Middle East, but it relates most specifically to Benghazi. Why was Susan Rice appearing on every Sunday morning talk show? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why was the administration’s top political team gathering to prepare her for those appearances? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why does the email begin with the stated goal of conveying that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to protect its people abroad? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why is the group talking about “bringing people who harm Americans to justice”? The only place where Americans were harmed was Benghazi. Obviously, the email relates to Benghazi. And equally obviously, its reference to “underscor[ing] that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” was intended to deflect blame for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.ABC's Jonathan Karl clearly wasn't buying Carney's blather. It is clear that everyone was scrambling trying to escape blame for the fact that four Americans. Not the terms in the email about underscoring that everything was "rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." and to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." That was why the administration had originally redacted this memo and only gave it up in response to a FOIA request. They had deliberately not given the memo to Congress investigating the events in Benghazi.
Now Carney has to find a way to say black is white and distance the White House from what it was clearly involved in - obfuscating about what had happened in Benghazi and not responsible for Susan Rice going on five shows and blaming the internet video. The administration has always said that that information came from the CIA and now it's been revealed quite clearly that the White House was involved. Andrew McCarthy explains how the administration started misleading the public about the protests in Cairo right from the beginning in order to distract from the failures of their policies in Egypt. It was clear that the protests in Cairo were being orchestrated by jihadists who were protesting the imprisonment in the U.S. of the Blind Sheikh.
In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”The administration started out lying about what had been going on in Cairo and then just spread their lies over to Benghazi. The White House has always blamed the CIA for the talking points given to Susan Rice blaming the internet video for Benghazi, but these new, incriminating emails reveal that that was not true and the CIA Deputy Director has testified that the CIA was not the source of that talking point. As Guy Benson explains, that email that Jay Carney says was not about Benghazi includes several references to Benghazi as well as a sample question that Rice might face when she went on the Sunday shows. Hillary Clinton and President Obama repeated this same phony story when comforting the relatives of the murdered Americans.
The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.
The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.
Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood–governed Egypt, the continuing demand for the Blind Sheikh’s release (which underscored the jihadists’ influence), and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which demonstrated that al-Qaeda was anything but “decimated”).
The transparent purpose of the State Department’s shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere “protests”) were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama’s policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda.
None of this will be to Hillary Clinton's benefit as she runs for president. She might claim that it makes no difference now, but for a woman with no real accomplishments, she is going to have to explain her actions or lack of actions in Libya. As Daniel Greenfield writes, her problem "isn't age - it's experience." The WSJ directly connects this cover-up on Benghazi to Hillary Clinton.
All of this bears directly on Mrs. Clinton's qualifications to be President. Her State Department overlooked repeated warnings about a growing militant threat in Benghazi, denying requests for improved security. And the father of a CIA contractor told media outlets that Mrs. Clinton tried to comfort him by promising that the maker of the YouTube video would be "prosecuted and arrested," though the video had nothing to do with his son's death.
The several congressional investigations into Benghazi have been undermined by turf battles and shoddy work. We long ago advised that a select committee could focus the effort and bring overdue clarity to a shameful episode in American history. It still could.
Jason Riley of the WSJ points out that the NAACP was quite happy to ignore Donald Sterling's racist history as long as he was giving them money.
“This man has a long history of paying to make lawsuits – anti-discrimination lawsuits – go away, and this has to deal with his non-basketball activities.”And that is why the Los Angeles Chapter of the NAACP is now under increased scrutiny.The president of that branch, Leon Jenkins, doesn't not have a savory record.
“The NAACP knows about this history, and yet gave him a lifetime achievement award and was about to give him a second one,” the WSJ editor continued.
“This is another example of how the civil rights movement has become an industry,” Riley added. “You have groups like the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, others who basically go around the country shaking down corporations and individuals for money.”
“This guy gave them money,” Reilly said of Sterling, “and that’s what’s most important to them.”
He said that the organizations and individuals he named care more about “lining their own pockets” than aiding the minority community. He cited these groups opposition to charter schools and the expansion of Wal-Mart stores while taking funds from labor and teachers unions. “So, there is a pattern here,” Riley asserted.
While a Detroit judge, Jenkins in 1988 was indicted on federal bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud and racketeering charges, according records from the State Bar Court of California.No wonder this whole Donald Sterling saga is also a revealing moment about the Los Angeles NAACP. It is also revealing about the NBA league, sports media, and players. Donald Sterling's despicable racist qualities were known before this one incident. He had been sued by former employees and the Justice Department. There was sworn testimony about his racism. Why didn't people make a fuss about this before TMZ put his words on the internet? Why didn't the media raise holy hell about his racism before this? Free agents went to play for him; Doc Rivers went to work for him. If they claim that they didn't know about how despicable he was, what are they paying all those highly-paid agents to do for them if not conduct such research ahead of signing contracts?
Authorities at the time alleged that Jenkins received gifts from those who appeared in his court and committed perjury, the records show. He was acquitted of criminal charges. But in 1994 the Michigan Supreme Court disbarred him, finding "overwhelming evidence" that Jenkins "sold his office and his public trust," according to the bar records.
Jenkins was practicing law in California in 1991, serving as an attorney to the family of Latasha Harlins, an African American girl who was fatally shot by a Korean grocery store owner in South L.A., according to Times reports at the time.
In 1995, the California Bar Assn. began looking into the misconduct allegations from Michigan. He was disbarred in 2001, according to the state bar. He tried to be reinstated in 2006 but was rejected, records show. He made another attempt in 2012.
Earlier this month, the bar turned him down, questioning whether he had the "moral fitness to resume the practice of law," according to records. The bar stated that he made misrepresentations on divorce papers and on his petition for reinstatement to the bar. Officials claimed he failed to disclose a $660,000 loan he owed former legal clients.
Kudos to one Princeton student who is fighting back against being nagged to "check his privilege" because he is a white male. Tal Forgang was sick of being judged on the color of his skin so he prepared his own message for those reprimanding him. His response is quite well done.
Stop if you've heard this before: An Illinois governor, a Democrat, is being investigated by a criminal grand jury for corruption.