Those talking points emails
Stephen F. Hayes analyzes the lies the administration told about the emails related to the Benghazi talking points.
And that involves only the emails the White House has deigned to release; there are apparently many others that remain private.
But this focus on the emails is somewhat like paying a lot of attention to a hangnail with a limb is becoming gangrenous. I understand that the emails at least furnish us with something obvious and analyzable to deal with—actual evidence that can be compared to the actual evidence of what the Obama administration has been saying (although one trick the Obama administration has long used, about Benghazi and myriad other topics, is to say a whole bunch of contradictory things so that they can point to one occasion where they actually said the right thing). The larger, deeply important, and still-unanswered questions with Benghazi, however, involve the lamentable lack of prior security, the motivation behind the lies about the video, the imprisonment of the video’s creator, the failure to respond to the attack (in particular the “stand down” orders), the whereabouts and activity of Obama on the night of 9/11/12, the odd role of Candy Crowley in the second debate, and the inadequacy of the subsequent investigation of Benghazi by Obama’s appointees.
What’s more, the continuing attempts by Obama and company (including his still-remaining press lackeys, of whom there are plenty) to paint efforts to understand what happened re Benghazi as much ado about nothing are, quite simply, reprehensible.
“…the whereabouts and activity of Obama on the night of 9/11/12,”
^^THIS^^ To have the commander in chief apparently MIA for the duration of the attack is unbelievable. And doing so after ordering the military to stand down. There are hours unaccounted for.
Whatever mistakes or poor decisions were made before and after the attack can be analyzed and taken into consideration with the myriad of other demands on his attention at the time. However, it’s scandalous that our president didn’t even bother to participate while the event is taking place that concerns me the most. What could have been more important?
Re: “that involves only the emails the White House has deigned to release; there are apparently many others that remain private.”
“The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.”
It is those early emails that are certain to be the most important and damaging. Typical delay, obfuscation and damage control in a cover-up.
Obama’s not on the ropes yet but his administration’s desperateness is increasingly obvious.
Here’s what Obama said during the debate at Hofstra on Oct. 16, 2012:
“Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.
So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them………
……… And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.”
Empty words, no?
Further on there was this:
“CROWLEY: Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
OBAMA:Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.”
More empty words and the e-mails show that.
As of today he is claiming that the lack of security at Benghazi was due to a lack of funding by Congress – especially the House. That, of course, is not exactly true. There had been no budgets since 2008. Money was spent pretty much as the administration wanted to, and it was approved by contentious continuing resolutions. Obama was reducing defense spending and State was spending money on “green initiatives” rather than on embassy security. They were increasing social spending (Food Stamps, SS Disability, unemployment benefits, etc.)and green spending while cutting national security spending. The sequester will cut both defense and DOS spending even further. Now, nine months after the attack at Benghazi, Obama is suddenly calling for a bill to spend $2 billion on new embassy security. All while blaming the lack of security at Benghazi on those rascally Republican House members. Another strawman for Obama to attack.
No one has politicized this issue more than Obama. Now we have the e-mails to further prove the case.
“He’s just playing these word games.”–Kirsten Powers
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/hes-continually-saying-something-thats-demonstrably-false/
Neo: “But this focus on the emails is somewhat like paying a lot of attention to a hangnail with a limb is becoming gangrenous. … The larger, deeply important, and still-unanswered questions …”
This is the key. Frame, context, and narrative, narrative, narrative. Always refer back to the big picture of ‘Why does this matter?’. Every detail is a puzzle piece that should be sifted, placed, and connected to form the big picture for the public.
As with any complex puzzle, a preview of the big picture that serves as a constant reference for the public is important.
Or, the theory of the case for lawyers arguing a case at trial. The opening argument lays out the theory of the case and lays out the framework of proof, then the big picture gets filled in during arguments that continually refer back to the theory of the case. If the theory is faulty or arguments poorly connect the evidence to the theory, then the details are just noise.