That was too much for a number of news people. Fox News’s Bret Baier remarked:
This was a surreal answer from Jay Carney. Now, this is a prep session with Susan Rice, getting ready for five Sunday talk shows. This is three days after 9/11 when four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya, are killed. Everybody in the chain has said it’s a terrorist attack, everyone in the chain is saying there’s no protest. And yet this email, if we’re to believe Jay Carney at the White House, had nothing to do with Benghazi. It was more about the broad scope of the region. Now, imagine that. What are they going to ask about on five Sunday talk shows when you have four Americans who were killed just days before? They’re not going to ask about the other protests that didn’t see any Americans killed. They’re going to ask about that. So then he said that the reason they didn’t originally put forward this email to the committee — they eventually got it to the committee redacted — was because it didn’t deal with Benghazi. Now, that really strains credulity, I mean it is really out there.
Jake Tapper was similarly dubious, observing “The context of Rhodes’ emails is, of course, that President Barack Obama was in the midst of a heated re-election campaign where one of his talking points was that he had brought a steady hand in fighting terrorists, indeed that ‘al Qaeda is on the run.'”
Nor were Republicans on Capitol Hill buying this. In a letter to the speaker retiring Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) stressed:
Mr. Speaker, it is now abundantly clear that senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video, which they knew from the CIA and others was demonstrably false. In short, the administration, specifically the White House, lied about a matter with direct bearing on U.S. national security in order to influence an electoral outcome.In light of these new documents, it is more clear than ever that a House Select Committee is needed to conduct a comprehensive investigation unhindered by jurisdictional barriers, interview all key administration witnesses, including the White House staff identified in these e-mails, and hold public hearings to explain to the American people, once and for all, just what happened that night and in the days and weeks that followed.
It is hard to believe that this was not a Benghazi-specific document. The White House was being bombarded by questions about the ambassador’s death. There was a ceremony broadcast live on Sept. 14 to meet the incoming caskets of the murdered Americans. And we are to believe the Rhodes memo was about other demonstrations only? Strangely he does not say “This applies to Egypt but not Libya.” To the contrary, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out that the email itself references the desire to get people who harmed Americans; the only Americans harmed — killed — were in Benghazi.
Let’s recall the sequence of events. State Department, CIA officials and reporters have explained that within 24 hours, certainly 48 hours (Sept. 13) the State Department and CIA knew this was a planned terrorist attack. The FBI was already dispatched. A background briefing by the State Department on Sept. 12 reiterated that this was a coordinated attack. The CIA in whatever version of talking points it generated never referred to the video, yet Rhodes made that the entire focus of his narrative. (Rhodes is unlikely to be the author of a story like this. As deputy national security adviser certainly he would have either gotten the word from on high or conferred with superiors before sending Rice out with a bogus explanation for the deaths of four Americans.)
Now maybe Carney is right and there is a perfectly reasonable explanation here. In that case, Rhodes should tell Congress under oath. He can then tell us how he got the idea the video was the sole explanation for Benghazi. (Rhodes may well be about to shoved under the Obama bus, given that involvement of anyone more senior to him would be hugely problematic for the White House.) By holding back the emails until two weeks ago the White House cements the impression it was trying to hide them from Congress and the public. The way to clear this up is to question the people under oath.
And frankly Hillary Clinton’s supporters should encourage this. The spinning here originated from the White House (and persisted there until Sep. 25). Why should she take the fall for a “cover-up”? To be candid, she may have been responsible for the attack by failure to recognize the massive influx of al-Qaeda into Libya, but it was the White House that clung to the video narrative up through the president’s Sept. 25 speech at the United Nations. What’s the point in protecting aides in a failing presidency if Hillary Clinton’s reputation and potential presidential campaign could be in the balance?