 |
Secretary of State John Kerry (AFP Photo / Mark Wilson)
|
Ahead of the congressional debate on a possible Syrian strike, US Secretary of State John Kerry will try to win the hearts of Americans by arguing the administration’s case on five major US talk shows, politico reported citing a White House source. Kerry is planning to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," CNN's "State of the Union" and "Fox News Sunday."If memory serves me, the last time an Obama Administration official made the full round of the Big 5 Sunday News Talk Shows, it was when Susan Rice (then U.S. Ambassador to the UN) presented the completely fallacious White House talking points on the terrorist attack on our Benghazi facility where four U.S citizens (including our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens) were killed.
According to an ABC News report:
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
The narrative presented by Susan Rice, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and other administration officials was that the attack was a spontaneous Muslim riot over a YouTube video which blasphemed Muhammad. Clinton even promised the mother of one of the slain Marines that we would "get those who put out that video and caused the riot." And in fact, the producer of the allegedly provocative Muhammad video is the only person to be arrested since this travesty.
The Obama administration's entire Benghazi narrative has been proven to be an outright lie, and it has been proven that the entire administration knew even while the attack was going on in Benghazi (and while they still had time and resources to send aid to our staff, but told them to stand down) that it was a serious, organized, heavily armed (with RPGs, rocket-propelled grenades) assault.
The ABC report cited above goes into great detail how White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney was continuing to claim, even as late as November, that the editing of the White House talking points (from which Susan Rice was working on her grand tour of the Big 5 Sunday News Shows) was done by the intelligence community, even though emails had proven that it was the State Department, which did not want revealed the true cause of the attack in Benghazi:
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted....
It's very clear that the entire Administration — White House, State Department, etc. — is guilty of lies and cover up regarding Benghazi during the heat of the presidential campaign.
So, what is the point of Secretary Kerry making the Grand Tour tomorrow?
Well, if the last Sunday Grand Tour — by Susan Rice on September 16, 2012 — was an effort to put forth a false narrative about Benghazi, which the White House then clearly lied about for months afterwards to cover everything up, why would anyone think this Grand Tour by John Kerry, trying to drum up support for a military assault on Syria based on possibly falsified evidence, unverified by UN investigators, already rejected by the British Parliament, would be any different?
They lied to us about Benghazi. Why would we trust them now? It seems that the bigger the lie, the more Sunday News shows they hit. So you could call this a 5-Star Lie.
But that raises a very disturbing question. Why?
Why are they pushing so hard for war?