RUTHFULLY YOURS

He’s serious.

ABC’s Jon Karl rips Carney, using the former CIA director’s words, regarding the nature of the attack. Carney blithely returns to his prepared talking points — “It was based on the based on the best information we had” leading the way, when blaming the attack on a video was not at all the “best information” that the administration had. It was the best spin they had at the time, but not the best information.

The administration had at least two better pieces of information — the Pentagon and the CIA both initially believed, correctly, that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, not a spontaneous protest resulting from an obscure video. There was also the Sept 10 Cairo warning that the embassy would be burned if the US did not release the blind sheikh.

Karl asks Carney why the specific Ben Rhodes email was not released to Congress, why it took a court case to pry it out of administration’s hands.

Carney’s answer: “This document was not about Benghazi.”

It clearly was about Benghazi. Carney knew it existed before he repeatedly insisted that the White House played no role in the Susan Rice talking points.

The cover-up continues.

By the way, here’s the email that Carney says was not about Benghazi. It’s dated September 14, 2012, three days after the attack, but before Ambassador Rice would appear on the Sunday shows and blame the video. Benghazi dominated the headlines that entire week after the attack. To suggest that that email is not about Benghazi is literally unbelievable. See updates on next page.

More: Watching the video again, I’ve noticed something else. Carney uses news network show promos from the week of the attack to somehow “prove” that everyone thought Benghazi was a response to a YouTube. The networks were responding, of course, to the line that the White House was pushing at the time. Carney clearly came out briefed and ready to use those promo lines to deflect the contents of the Judicial Watch emails. Using those promos does nothing more than prove that the White House’s dishonest line was effectively spinning the media around in the critical days after the attack. Using them now also proves that Carney and the rest of the White House spinners have no interest in telling the truth, not now or ever.

Update: Judicial Watch responds that Carney’s new line isn’t credible, because the group sued to get Benghazi talking points, and that email was among the documents that it received in response to that lawsuit.

The line doesn’t have to be credible, of course, it just has to get the administration through another day.

Update: We have the subject of tomorrow’s briefing’s opening question. Or, the reason that the White House will cancel tomorrow’s briefing.