Susan Rice’s Revealing Encore on “Meet the Press”

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

We have often pointed out how NBC, along with its cable-news arm MSNBC, are networks that work in the service of the Obama administration. That was never more clear than when National Security Adviser Susan Rice visited a Sunday morning talk show last weekend for the first time since her disastrous and dishonest appearances on September 16, 2012, just days after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi took the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. She of course chose NBC’s “Meet the Press” for her appearance, knowing, whether by pre-arrangement or obvious bias, that there would be no penetrating questions, or anything to put her on the defensive when it came to Benghazi. And she was right. Here were the three questions that MTP host David Gregory chose to ask her:

1.) “As you look back at your involvement in all of that, do you have any regrets?”

2) “The politics of this are still intense. Do you believe it cost you the Secretary of State job?”

3) “Seventeen months later, are we any closer to finding who is responsible?”

Gregory should lose his standing as a journalist after that performance. But, he’s not the only member of the media who has focused on Rice’s supposed aborted chances at Secretary of State.

Let’s take a look at Rice’s answers. She said she had no regrets “because what I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time. …I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues, and indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.” No, she wasn’t validated. We have shown how the talking points that she used on her five Sunday shows had been scrubbed and altered over the course of several days, including by the White House. The evidence is there for anyone to read, thanks to the release of 100 emails by the Obama administration, a move prompted by Congress.

Also, the President and Secretary of State, and press secretary Jay Carney, were emphasizing that the anti-Islam video was what led to the attack, but they likely knew that the intelligence community had scrubbed the terms terrorism and al Qaeda from the talking points. We also know that minutes into the attack, General Carter Ham of AFRICOM told Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey that it wasn’t a demonstration—his own words. “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration,” Ham said during a previously classified briefing. “But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

His superiors then went into President Obama that night for a 5:00 p.m. meeting. In his pre-Superbowl interview, President Obama admitted that he knew at the time his military advisors were classifying the event as a terrorist attack, even when they just said “attack.” He said to O’Reilly, “Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound, that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened.”

“So, the question ends up being, who in fact was attacking us?” he continued.

Some additional journalistic questions that Gregory could have asked Rice include:

1.) “It has now come out that the Obama administration knew that this was a terrorist attack within minutes. Was this communicated to your office before you appeared on the five Sunday talk shows, and if not, why not?”

The recently-released House Armed Services Committee report indicates that those Defense officials “most familiar with the events in Benghazi” did not believe the attack resulted from a protest.

2.) “Why was so little military force used to respond to the Benghazi attacks?”

Questions remain over why the administration was so poorly positioned to respond to an attack on the anniversary of September 11th and why nearby available assets were not utilized.

3.) “We now know that the Innocence of Muslims video had little or nothing to do with the attacks, although it was blamed early on. Who in the government was telling you to champion this story when you appeared on the Sunday talk shows? Was it just the CIA talking points, or did the White House give you specific instructions on what to say? President Obama said at a news conference that your ‘presentation’ was done ‘at the request of the White House.’”

As mentioned earlier, House Armed Services Committee Republicans do not believe the YouTube narrative originated from the military. Also, The New York Times’ recently released investigation of Benghazi blamed the video, a point we’ve repeatedly debunked.

After Rice left the set on Sunday, MSNBC conducted a roundtable discussion about it. Once again, Chris Matthews cited the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence report to say that Rice was right all along. “You know, when she was on the program with you, if you go back and look at the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, basically, on the main points that it was a copycat situation, Benghazi, it came out of what happened in Cairo, which itself probably came out of that crazy video out of Los Angeles, but it did track,” said Matthews. “And the language used by her that day, which was ‘extremism’ rather than ‘terrorism,’ had come from the intelligence community. Then the refusal to mention al-Qaeda in that context, was directly a decision by Petraeus, as DCI.” Even the administration doesn’t make the claim that Rice is still right, but here it is proceeding from the mouth of Matthews.

Actually, it was former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell (who later served as acting director) who was responsible for the removal of nearly half of the talking points, and he’s come under fire recently for allegedly misleading lawmakers. As we’ve pointed out, the SSCI report does not call the attack a “copycat situation” with Cairo, and faults the CIA for not prioritizing on-the-ground witness accounts, utilizing instead faulty intelligence that relied heavily on incorrect media reports.

Stephen Hayes of Fox News and The Weekly Standard, in an op-ed for The New York Times, wrote that “Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs at the State Department, sent an e-mail on Sept. 12, 2012, in which she reported, ‘the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Shariah, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.’ Among those copied on that e-mail were top State Department officials; Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management; Cheryl Mills, counselor to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman.” Maybe that explains why then-Secretary Clinton passed on going on those Sunday talk-shows herself.

In contrast to the MSNBC Obama acolytes, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation, was outraged by Rice’s expressed lack of regret. “I’m almost speechless,” said McCain, “because it’s patently obvious, first of all, that Susan Rice had no reason to be on the program, she had no involvement in it [Benghazi],” he said. “We now know that the CIA station chief on the ground sent a message immediately saying, ‘Not-slash-not spontaneous demonstration,’ and of course the information was totally misleading, totally false.” Add to that Carter Ham’s admission at a closed briefing that he told Panetta and Dempsey it was not a demonstration, and it’s a wonder how the higher ups in the administration can continue to claim that the story just naturally “evolved” for them.

But the media is once again calling this just Republican politicking, a common tactic for those members of the mainstream media who are afraid of the truth and would like to ignore these “phony” Obama administration scandals. It’s all just politically motivated and has nothing behind it, these journalists claim. Thus, Katty Kay, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” February 24, used this as a further example of Republicans still trying to use Benghazi as a political issue, with no suggestion whatsoever that Rice was being disingenuous in her interview. As we’ve reported earlier, Kay also blamed Ambassador Stevens for his own death and the death of three other Americans. Other members of the liberal media followed suit.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.


The Clear And Present Danger of Russian Expansionism

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: Tom Elia – The New Editor

The expansionism threat of Russia is about to become very close and personal. This is what you get when the enemies within America, such as John Kerry and Barack Obama, declare the Monroe Doctrine dead. They have opened the door to our biggest enemies: Russia, China and Iran. Here comes the Russian bear.

Not only do the Russians have a warship docked in Cuba for easy access to quell the Venezuelan uprising, they are also negotiating with 8 governments around the world for access to their military facilities, so Russia can extend its long-range naval and strategic bomber capabilities with refueling ports. Those 8 countries include: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Algeria, Cyprus, the Seychelles, Vietnam and Singapore. Three of those — Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua — are right in our back yard. Remember, Iran has a major base in Caracas and China has their financial hooks set solidly into virtually every country. An ocean no longer separates and protects America from her enemies.

While Russia is playing global chess expertly, a weakened America is gutted militarily by her Marxist President, while playing checkers and losing. Dark humor abounds from the genius of Iowa Hawk:

If one did not know better (wink, wink), you’d think Obama was in cahoots with Putin to bring us to our knees. We can no longer help allies such as the Ukraine because we are flat broke as a nation. Even if we had the financial wherewithal, since our military has been so drastically reduced, we don’t have sufficient troops who could be deployed. We can’t win a war without an adequate number of soldiers or without an arsenal, which we no longer have and it will take years and years to rebuild. The one thing Obama has done very well, is neuter the last super power on earth. The Ukrainian crises has proven to Russia that they have free rein to do as they please and it has emboldened the bear and she is ravenous. Putin has outright stated he wants to expand his power and reach and the world shrugs. The bear has a taste for Europe, but the US is her main course.

These aren’t technically Russian bases being established. But they might as well be and they are militarily strategic:

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Wednesday the military was engaged in talks with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Algeria, Cyprus, the Seychelles, Vietnam and Singapore.

“We need bases for refueling near the equator, and in other places,” ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying.

Russia is not looking to establish bases in those locations, but to reach agreement to use facilities there when required.

The countries are all strategically located – in three leftist-ruled countries close to the U.S.; towards either end of the Mediterranean; in the Indian Ocean south of the Gulf of Aden; and near some of the world’s most important shipping lanes in the Malacca Strait and South China Sea.

Access to the new locations would extend the Russian military’s potential reach well beyond its existing extraterritorial bases, at the Syrian port of Tartus and in former Soviet states – Ukraine’s Sevastopol, Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and the occupied Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Shoigu said Russia was also beefing up its existing military presence in the post-Soviet region, doubling its troop numbers in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and deploying a regiment of troops to Belarus where it already has fighter aircraft stationed.

“Russia has started reviving its navy and strategic aviation since mid-2000s, seeing them as a tool to project the Russian image abroad and to protect its national interests around the globe,” the RIA Novosti state news agency commented.

“Now, Moscow needs to place such military assets in strategically important regions of the world to make them work effectively toward the goal of expanding Russia’s global influence.”

Russia is starting to make her move and this is with Obama’s blessing. Elections have consequences and Obama said he would be more flexible after he was re-elected. Behold the new flexibility… it brings conflict, war, strife, chaos and death.

This has been building since 2008, when Russia held joint naval exercises with Venezuela and the US yawned. They took place in the Caribbean, navigating the Panama Canal and making a port call in Havana. The Russkies were back in 2009 and last August. Russian strategic bombers also paid a visit in 2008. They returned again last fall, when two Tupolev “Blackjacks” carried out combat training patrols between Venezuela and Nicaragua. Crickets ensued from our government and military. Silence was evidently viewed as tacit approval.

The Russians have doubled their military spending since 2007 and by 2016, it will have tripled. The US has cut back to pre-WWII levels and we are still cutting. Why do you think Russia and China are spending so much money beefing up their military? So they can look cool in a YouTube video? Get real – they are coming for us eventually and right now, no one is standing in their way.

America, you had better wake up and fast. We have got to stop this Russian roulette being played by our leaders. We will lose if we don’t get rid of the Progressives and prepare to protect ourselves. We not only face a Constitutional crisis here at home, we are facing almost certain war abroad. Russian expansionism is a clear and present threat to America. We shouldn’t be cuddling with the Russian bear, we should be mounting their Communist head on a wall.


The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 02/28/14

The Watcher’s Council

Happy 5th Anniversary to the Tea Party!!! Top 13 Things You Missed At Our 5 Year Anniversary Event

Alea iacta est… the Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and we have the results for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“Alas! ye lordes, many a false flatterer
Is in your courts, and many a losenger,
That pleasen you well more, by my faith,
Than he that soothfastness unto you saith”. – Geoffrey Chaucer

“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” – Sir John Harrington

“Treachery is more often the effect of weakness than of a formed design”. – François La Rochefoucauld

This week’s winner, Joshuapundit’s Obama Appoints Hamas Ally To Key National Security Post, is my examination of yet another questionable appointment by President Obama to an extremely sensitive national security post… and what it signifies. Here’s a slice:

The man pictured above is Robert Malley. Today, it was announced that President Obama has appointed him the senior director at the National Security Council (NSC).

The NSC is the key body that advises President Obama and helps make decisions on national security and foreign policy matters. Its members consist of,among others, the vice president, the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security and Defense, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence, the president’s National Security Advisor and the deputy Adviser, the Attorney General and the president’s UN Adviser.Other special assistants to the president also attend as required.

In other words, this is President Obama’s ‘inner cabinet’ on national security, so to speak. The members, the top level members of the Obama Administrations, are privy to all of America’s intelligence, planning and confidential data.

So who is Robert Malley?

Of Syrian descent,he was a Clinton-era National Security Council staffer known for his tirades against Israel and his championing of Yasser Arafat. He made waves by blaming the Israelis for the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit, thereby contradicting the words of President Bill Clinton and every other U.S. official present, and rationalizing and defending Arafat’s terrorist war on Israel’s civilians.

Malley was a close crony of then presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama and a foreign policy adviser to the campaign back in 2008. Way back then, Candidate Obama still saw the necessity of getting clueless American Jews to vote for him, so when it surfaced that Robert Malley was meeting actively with the genocidal terrorist group Hamas, Obama took the opportunity to remove him from the campaign in 2008 as a gesture to prove his pro-Israel bonifides.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 2339B, providing material assistance to a designated terrorist group (which includes advice) is supposedly a federal offense, But Robert Malley had powerful friends (including Clinton NSA adviser Sandy Berger and Senator Barack Obama, whom he was pals with at Harvard) so he simply drifted back into the world of think tanks, where he could be relied on to write articles and make speeches demonizing Israel.

And actually, according to he Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, Malley never really left Obama’s circle. Al-Hayat reported that Hamas engaged in talks with Obama for months through Malley, which among other things resulted in their receiving almost a billion of your tax dollars from President Obama.

Robert Malley comes by this honestly. His father Simon was a very Marxist journalist who shilled for Algeria’s terrorist FLN, Egyptian dictator Gamel Abdul Nasser, African Marxist dictators like Kwame Nkrumah and Ahmed Sékou Touré, Fidel Castro, and of course, Yasser Arafat, of whom he was especially fond. Needless to say, Simon Malley also had an outspoken hatred towards Israel, and the apple definitely did not fall far from the tree.

Once Barack Obama became president, as we now know, he spent a great deal of time during his first term concentrating on bashing and attacking the Israel, giving the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians more U.S. money than they’d ever seen in their lives and in general behaving like Mahmoud Abbas’ own special community organizer.

That moderated a bit in 2012 when the president needed to fool people again for his re-election, but now that President Obama has no need to dissemble any longer, Malley will join the other members of the Obama Administration who have a long time record of hostility towards Israel.And he will be privy to America’s most highly classified secrets.

Malley has some interesting ties with Islamists worth looking at. Among Malley’s close associates is Wadah Khanfar, a Hamas activist based in the Middle East and South Africa (where he headed the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations) and now a key figure with al-Jazeera, AKA Jihad TV. According to one of my sources, Malley also has a relationship with our old friend Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a foul genocidal maniac who is too dirty even to be allowed into the U.S.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Mark Steyn with Hath not a Jew Eyes, submitted by Liberty’s Spirit. It’s a bold and blatant look at mass Jew-hatred and how the Jewish community is unwilling to see it. Do read it.

Okay, here are this week’s full results. Only Nice Deb was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!