Obama State Dept. withholding content of Obama/Hillary call from night of Benghazi attack
Some of us remember that Barack Obama jetted off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas on the night our consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists associated with Al Qaeda. Now you might be able to offer this defense of the president: He can do his job from anywhere. He has communication capabilities wherever he goes, and he has the freedom to use them any time he wants.
And, yes, that’s true. And on the night of September 11, 2012, he did make use of his communication tools to talk with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about what was happening in Benghazi. Not only that, but it turns out there is a transcript of that call in the possession of the State Department.
So what did they say? Ha! They’re not telling you, sillies. What they said is for them to know and you to not find out.
The email on the Obama-Clinton phone call bears the subject line, “Call.” The text of the email says, “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” but the rest of the details are fully redacted. The State Department cited the so-called “B5” exception for internal deliberations.
The emails also show that [Deputy National Security Advisor Ben] Rhodes, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and before the attack was over, endorsed a statement from Clinton that cited an anti-Islam Internet video.
That statement noted some tried to justify the assault “as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” Rhodes told Clinton’s aides that “we should let State Department statement be our comment for the night.”
The following day, Sept. 12, Meehan sent an email to State and NSC officials saying Rhodes would host a conference call that morning “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day.”
Note the emphasis on messaging, a seemingly strange priority given the reality of four dead embassy staffers (including the U.S. ambassador to Libya) and the very real possibility that other embassies and consulates in the region could be under threat. Yet not strange at all for this administration, especially in the midst of a re-election campaign that was hinging somewhat significantly on the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run.
That was a total lie, of course, and if the White House admitted that the attack was a) planned in advance; and b) Al Qaeda-connected, it would give the lie to that essential campaign theme. That’s exactly why they concocted the BS about the YouTube video and the whole thing being a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to it. Why admit that real terrorist organizations can still hit you when you can blame it on an amateur American video producer?
With all that said, if the Obama/Clinton phone transcript demonstrated that the administration really did play it straight in its response to the attack, don’t you think they’re release the transcript to demonstrate that instead of redacting the entire thing? Then again, if the whole thing was about messaging and politics, boy . . . that would look awfully bad, wouldn’t it? You don’t suppose that would serve as an incentive to keep it quite, do you?
Wild Thing’s comment…………
My guess is they were hatching that cover-up video story.