Jay Carney And Benghazi

An analysis of his latest lies.

As Jonah Goldberg said today, he is a very strange creature, in that he is simultaneously so brazen in his confidence in his mendacity and yet such a bad liar.

[Late-morning update]

Carney can’t catch a break. Of course, he doesn’t deserve to. Hilarious.

[Update a few minutes later]

Wow. Even the usual brown-noser king David Gregory isn’t buying it. When you’ve lost David Gregory, you’ve lost un-America.

11 thoughts on “Jay Carney And Benghazi

  1. ken anthony

    This is why ‘You Lie’ is considered inappropriate speech.

    The American public has been well trained by these characters.

  2. Chris L

    Carney thinks he can get away with it because in the past he has. It’s a stupid lie, even by this WH’s standards, but that doesn’t matter. The lie is being used to protect another lie that got Obama out of political hot water when he needed it. Even if it doesn’t work, they got what they wanted.

    1. Gregg

      I also wonder if the lie was supposed to cover the possibility that Obama was running guns to AQ?

      I haven’t read that it was proven he was running guns to AQ, but there was suspicion of it at one time.

  3. Bilwick

    I liked Ace of Spades’ comment: “Baghdad Bob just wrote me about Carney and said, ‘Boy, this guy has chops.’”

  4. Josh Reiter

    Just think if 9/11 had happened on Obama’s watch. He’d of just painted it as an action of a few disgruntled people making a statement about their unequal position in life. Praised the nation of Islam for their solidarity as they danced in the streets in joy. And swept it under the rug like he’s done everything else.

    And we wonder why the rest of the world laughs and calls us a ‘Paper Tiger’ once again.

    1. wodun

      “He’d of just painted it as an action of a few disgruntled people making a statement about their unequal position in life. Praised the nation of Islam for their solidarity as they danced in the streets in joy. ”

      That is pretty much what he and the Democrats have done.

  5. Jim

    They should have released the Rhodes email earlier, even though it isn’t Benghazi-specific, simply to avoid feeding the ridiculous “they didn’t give us this earlier so they must be hiding something” story. The email doesn’t add anything to what was already known.

    I sometimes try to imagine the administration response to Benghazi that would have satisfied the GOP. It would have to go something like:

    Yesterday, Al Qaeda terrorists attacked our mission in Benghazi and killed four of our people. This proves that Al Qaeda is on the rebound, my foreign policy is a complete failure, and I don’t deserve reelection.

    But of course it didn’t prove that Al Qaeda was on the rebound — even if you decide to conflate the group in question with Al Qaeda, it’s been 19 months, and there haven’t been more attacks on Americans. And it didn’t prove that Obama’s foreign policy was a failure. He’d deposed Gaddafi — a dictator who’d killed hundreds of Americans — at a cost of 4 American lives. That compares pretty well with Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

    1. Leland

      I sometimes try to imagine the administration response to Benghazi that would have satisfied

      How about not declining Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security? How about following the lead of other nations and bringing the Ambassador home or keeping him in a more secure location on September 11th? If keeping the Ambassador in residence is important, then how about positioning a capable QRF?

      After the fact, a response with the honest truth that the attack was preplanned would have been nice. Further, an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice would have been really nice. But best of all would have been a non-effort to blame the incident on Americans, the Ambassador himself, and jailing a person totally unrelated to the incident.

      I’m not the GOP, but those are the improvements I can think of in just 5 minutes effort.

      1. Jim

        How about not declining Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security?

        Clearly security should have been better, or else we shouldn’t have had people there. Nobody says otherwise.

        After the fact, a response with the honest truth that the attack was preplanned would have been nice.

        Once the White House knew that to be the case, they said so.

        an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice would have been really nice.

        And there has been such an effort.

        a non-effort to blame the incident on Americans, the Ambassador himself

        When did the White House blame Stevens?

        jailing a person totally unrelated to the incident

        He wasn’t jailed because of Benghazi, he was jailed because events in Egypt and Yemen made his parole violations front-page news.

    2. wodun

      “I sometimes try to imagine the administration response to Benghazi that would have satisfied the GOP.”

      Owning up to what went wrong prior and during the attack would have gone a long way. Also, holding people accountable not giving them raises and promotions. People would still be angry but Americans are very understanding that sometimes things go wrong and that not all terrorist attacks can be stopped.

      “But of course it didn’t prove that Al Qaeda was on the rebound — even if you decide to conflate the group in question with Al Qaeda”

      Viewing the problem of Islamic militants narrowly confined to the group of AQ shows enormous ignorance about how these groups operate. They share money, manpower, planning, and goals. To say that what happened in Libya or any of the other Arab Spring countries as anything other than AQ growing in popularity and power is wrong.

      “And it didn’t prove that Obama’s foreign policy was a failure. ”

      Oh come on now Jim. Obama helped Islamic militants take over Libya and then they killed our ambassador because Obama and his state department put political considerations ahead of protecting our people. Libya was a foreign policy failure from beginning to end. It wasn’t just confined to Libya either. Obama’s actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Egypt, and other Arab Spring countries also showed a foreign policy that was in taters and at odds with reality.

      “He’d deposed Gaddafi ”

      It is amazing that you want to give Obama credit for that but none of the blame for the aftermath. Obama didn’t do it alone either. He had the help of Islamic militants. Obama partnered with the same people we were fighting in Iraq and are fighting in Afghanistan.

      “at a cost of 4 American lives. That compares pretty well with Bush’s invasion of Iraq.”

      So on Iraq, Democrats are always upset about what happened to the citizens of Iraq. They always cite a body count but never mention that most of those people were killed by Islamic militants fronted by Iran and Syria. This is usually accompanied by some talk of not caring that people with brown skin die. In a historical context, the war in Iraq had a low body count for both Americans and Iraqis. Now, when Democrats talk about Libya, they only cite the four dead Americans and not the untold death and suffering of the people of Libya. Not a square to spare for the brown people in Libya.

      It just emphasizes how everything the Democrats professed as their core values during the Bush years was nothing more than political posturing for domestic power and money.

      1. Jim

        Owning up to what went wrong prior and during the attack would have gone a long way. Also, holding people accountable not giving them raises and promotions. People would still be angry but Americans are very understanding that sometimes things go wrong

        The administration has owned up to the security failures — just read the investigation reports. If you think the non-stop Fox News coverage and GOP attacks are all about civil servants getting raises and promotions, you’re dreaming.

        they killed our ambassador because Obama and his state department put political considerations ahead of protecting our people.

        What political considerations? We put a CIA operation in a dangerous place, under the umbrella of a diplomatic mission, and miscalculated the security situation. There was nothing political about it.

        when Democrats talk about Libya, they only cite the four dead Americans

        That’s the correct number to cite when one is making a comparison to the thousands of dead Americans in Iraq. If you prefer we can talk about the thousands of Libyans that were saved by our intervention there, versus the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died because of Bush’s decision to invade. There is simply no way you can consider Libya a failure without considering Iraq a much, much bigger failure, in every way: Americans killed or injured, Arabs killed or injured or displaced, diplomatic and strategic position, money spent, you name it.

Comments are closed.