Goal Posts and WH strategy

The goal posts are moving, again, now almost daily.

At first they said there was nothing to suggest the White House changed or had anything to do with altering the talking points on Benghazi.

Here you have a chief WH staffer, Ben Rhodes, telling and suggesting what Susan Rice should say in her Sunday talk-a-thon. Then Rice goes out on the talk shows blaming Benghazi attack on the video, per script.

Carney telling us that the email had nothing to do with Benghazi is like… well, and they claim we dabble in conspiracies? Am I to believe he wrote the email to Rice, prior to her talk-a-thon, and was explicitly NOT talking about Benghazi? (Sure) Why would he exempt Benghazi… where 4 Americans were viciously killed, and all the attention was focused, and what Susan Rice mostly talked about? Then they claim the Benghazi blame points came from the CIA, not so per Morell. So then she would have had to inject that video reason for Benghazi all by her lonesome. (that’s a wild theory)

That Rhodes was not even referring to Benghazi, even though he did mention it, doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it wreaks. The other absurdity on its face is that if in fact he did mean the video was the reason for the protests and violence, anywhere, then that really blames us and supplies terrorists a universal excuse. That was Mitt Romney’s problem as it was happening. But they would rather cling to some flimsy excuse for the perpetrators of violence than admit there was a real terrorist attack in Benghazi — unattached to a video.

If Rhodes was making the point about protests excluding Benghazi, then wouldn’t you think he (the WH) would have made a point to lay out a real cause for Benghazi itself, alone, untied to the other protests? No, he was referring to Benghazi.

But the goal post did move. The left said there was nothing connecting the WH to what was said in the talking points. Hello, there it is. Now they say it doesn’t. Their co-opting of the talking points were not even about Benghazi. Jay must have thought that one up by himself. Just connect what Rice said, explicitly referring to Benghazi, to Rhodes instructions in the email. Voila. She followed the script perfectly. Now they merely dismiss deny that Rhodes’ email, copied to everyone, had anything at all to do with Benghazi. Nancy says there is “nothing new”. Lets just say they stretched the goal posts from one place to another. Now they will claim this means nothing — denial.

Liars and liars, and liars. “No substantive changes…”- Jay Carney.

It’s pretty bad when CNN, with its own queen of spin, Crowley, thinks it’s absurd.

(…see if CNN gets anymore special interviews!)

RightRing | Bullright

Cover up continues: oozing Benghazi

Sometimes thinking out loud is a good form of clarifying one’s thoughts. And sometimes that just adds to more questions and suspicions.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Article and video

Sadly, only now this comes out about Benghazi. It is filed with irony.

First is the direct intention of government — presumably from all levels — to assert the Internet video as the root cause. This of course is lying and rewriting the events, but who cared about that when they had a presidential campaign to save and defend? Then is their intent to put the UN ambassador’s stamp of approval on it. Of course, it was the opposite: the White House putting its stamp of approval on what Rice would say. (the reverse of their intentions) Throwing the WH voice from the mouth of the ambassador.

Plus their choreography of the events directly contradicted the campaign’s central theme of a president with steady leadership at the helm. In fact, he was AWOL and no where to be found even though the day it took place on the infamous date of the 9/11 attack. So the irony is as thick as pea soup. And the subtext of the campaign theme was a defeated al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

The campaign message was interjected, as a priority, into their depiction of the events. But Obama was no where around, almost intentionally absent. As was Hillary and her steady leadership at the State Department.

The video itself, which had nothing to do with the events was described as hate-filled. What was clear was the violent nature of the attack itself. To think that they nearly pulled it off, as far as media is concerned anyway, is an astonishing piece of history. That to this day they still give the president default plausible deniability for it is equally troubling.

So on one hand you have the event and circumstances themselves, and on the other you have the media disintegration around the major story of the year. But then we have the way each of them played out, Obama’s statements at the UN; and the media charade at the debate vouching for Obama. (Candy Crowley played right along)

There was the speed by which this story spread around the globe in criticizing and blaming a video, as much of the real criticism belonged to the White House and the State Department.(Not to mention all the operatives who did their part)

Then we had Hillary who had to be almost dragged to Congress to testify about the attack. (after blunt head injury) And her stunning absence in the actual events was shrouded in mystery. Then convey this to people at the time as steady leadership. That it took a year and a half to even get this information is another testimony against the duo.(doesn’t speak much for media either) It’s as if not only were they both asleep at the switch, but they took a sleeping pill at the onset.

It is obvious (and ironic) that White House’s biggest priorities were the president protecting himself, and blaming an Internet video. Neither of those fit the Constitutional definition for the president. (…protecting Americans or being honest with the people.)

And contrary to the posture of the two leaders in charge, were the intricate plans of the operation in Libya from the beginning: from Obama’s stealthy, unilateral action to Hillary’s priority to establish an outpost in Benghazi by a certain date. Then afterward to act as if it was not even on their radar, and that they were surprised at the events is beyond belief. And it all would, again ironically, “require the willing suspension of disbelief”. After all, why would so many subordinates go to such lengths to obfuscate the truth, covering for their superiors, all by their own initiative?

Now that we know what was going on in the White House on Benghazi, one can imagine what was going on in sycophant media conference rooms amidst the campaign. Oddly enough, by the time of that debate they had come full circle to try to claim that they said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Well, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble then.

What this email trail makes clear is that it was not happenstance, that it was a wide-spread, coordinated, choreographed initiative driven by the White House with concerns about the campaign. Isn’t it funny what an email trail reveals? The campaign message drove the false narrative.

Obama does have a formal doctrine, its called the Denial Doctrine.

Ben Rhodes is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting.

RightRing | Bullright