Stephen Hayes puts up an excellent column in the Weekly Standard disputing Jay Carney’s claim that there are “no unanswered questions” regarding Susan Rice’s public appearances. Go and read the whole thing but the absurdity can be found just in a few paragraphs at a time.
That’s five changes to the story about the talking points in two weeks—and we still have a glaring contradiction between the testimony of the former CIA director and the latest claims from his replacement.
The reasons Obama officials have given for the edits have changed, too. At first we were told that al Qaeda references were excised because the links were thought to be “tenuous”—despite the fact that one of the pieces of intelligence supporting the al Qaeda ties was an intercepted phone call. Perhaps mindful of that evidence, we were later told that mentioning al Qaeda in the unclassified talking points could jeopardize sources and methods. Then came Morell’s contention that the FBI didn’t want to compromise an investigation and, following that, the current claim that we didn’t want to tip off the attackers that we were on to them by publicly assigning them responsibility.
When I asked a former senior intelligence official about that possibility, he said: “Nobody who can spell the word ‘intelligence’ believes that for a second.” A U.S. official investigating Benghazi was more blunt: “Complete bullshit.”
The title of this post is not there to make light of the actual dead in Benghazi, just the story that seems to be one of “let’s pass thing thing around and around and around and around until it dies a death of a thousand small news bits”. Our Secretary of State still hasn’t testified to the fiasco. It’s criminal. Thank you Mr. Hayes for keeping it alive.