Maureen Dowd gets it.

The Obama administration, and by default the left's media apparatus are in full spin control, which according to Dowd, goes a little like this:

             “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”

This is exactly what White House Spokesman Jay Carney has been doing.

When the Benghazi attack happened, for weeks the White House couldn't comment because it was to soon to comment and the hadn't had time to gather all the facts.

Then, after months of not answering questions about it, Jay Carney said that too much time had passed, "That it happened a long time ago." so that apparently whatever facts they had gathered had wandered off and weren't available anymore.

Of course, it's all lies.

The facts are plain as day.

The Obama Administration put Ambassador Stevens in Libya, at a poorly secured embassy.

Requests for additional security were denied over and over.

The embassy was attacked.

The Obama Administration did nothing.

Stevens was killed along with 3 other Americans.

The Obama Administration lied and attempted to cover up.

The majority of the press ignored the story during the election to insure another win for Obama.

Under pressure, Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and others are forced to turn over material that categorically proves everything I've just said.

Now the media is in full scale spin control.

It's no longer saying that nothing happened.

It's no longer saying that they didn't respond poorly.

It's no longer saying that they, maybe, didn't have all their facts straight, sorta.

Now the spin is "republicans are on a witch hunt".

Nice.

___________________________________________________________________________________

In the Sunday New York Times, Maureen Dowdweighed in on the Benghazi house of cards and it isn't pretty.

by LARRY O'CONNOR  12 May 2013

Unlike most left-leaning journalists, who are just now discovering the Benghazi story because they're collective noses are out of joint because the Obama Administration left a paper trail proving they lied to reporters over the Susan Rice talking points, Dowd also focuses on some of the less-reported outrages over the State Department's deadly negligence in the months leading up to the attacks:


Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

She goes on to accuse Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of "rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies."

Dowd, saw first-hand how an audacious president lied to reporters and the American people (and to a Grand Jury, for that matter) and then responded with self-centered, emotional indignation when the press corp dared to challenge the defination of the word "is."

She know draws on that experience and declares that a serious case of "déjà vu" is now infiltrating the capital as scandal control mechanisms are fully deployed:
The capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”


___________________________________________________________________________________

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory played White House Spokesman Jay Carney's now-infamous November declaration that "the White House and State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of these two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

by LARRY O'CONNOR  12 May 2013

He followed up the video clip by declaring "We know that's not accurate."

In Washington DC, using the word "lie" or calling someone a "liar" is almost completely forbidden, unless you're talking about President Bush and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But, let's parse this passage on "Meet the Press" for a moment and reach our own conclusions, as informed and responsible adults, shall we?

Carney asserted that the White House and State Department only changed "one word" in the Benghazi talking points. As Gregory correctly says, "we know that's not accurate." But, why didn't Gregory say,"we know that's not true?" or, even better, "we know that's a lie?"

The only reason Gregory won;t go there is a lie or an untruth is descriptive only in the context of the individual repeating an inaccurate statement also had full knowledge that the statement was inaccurate and said it to serve a deceptive purpose.

For Gregory to keep his description at "not accurate" rather than "a lie" he is giving Carney the benefit of a pretty big doubt here. He is granting Carney a cloak of protection that the facts and logic just don't support.
Does Gregory really believe that the White House press secretary was unaware in November that the State Department and White House had participated in twelve different revisions to these talking points prior to the CIA issuing the draft that was then modified by one word?
Does Gregory really believe that Carney assumed the press was only asking him about the final draft of the talking points, and not the entire creative process involved in the crafting of the talking points?

Logic and common sense suggest otherwise, but for now, Gregory walks a very narrow line and comes oh-so-close to describing Carney's November assertion of only one word change to the talking points as what it undeniably is: A lie.


___________________________________________________________________________________

It's clear that Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) had an aggressive strategy for his appearance on "Fox News Sunday" for a segment on the emerging scandal and cover-up surrounding the alteration of talking points for Amb. Susan Rice the week after the deadly terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2012.

by LARRY O'CONNOR

Smith went into a long and energetic monologue delivering his own, well-crafted talking points in an attempt to push back against the narrative set-up Friday by the ABC News report showing the twelve revisions of the talking points and the paper trail showing how the State Department and White House removed any mention of terrorism from the narrative that week.


"I think when you look at what was said in totality in that week, they didn't reach conclusions. The way you just presented that was that by the Sunday afterwards, that the administration said here is what happened, here is our conclusion.

Look, the day after the attack, the president called it a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, in those interviews on Sunday, described violent extremist elements who took over the attack.

So I really think that this is -- this has just become a very, very partisan-focused, scandal-focused attack by the Republicans investigating this. Instead of trying to figure out exactly what happened, the most interesting question to me is who are these violent extremist elements? I know Mike has done a ton of work on the Intel Committee -- as Al Qaeda has metastasized beyond just what was in Pakistan and Yemen.

There's a whole bunch of groups out there. We don't have as much information as we need to about which one threatened us. I think that's what led to Benghazi as much as anything.

But the president never said, no terrorism, no Al Qaeda. There was a dispute about how soon to lead to specific conclusions that now is being made into Watergate and Iran-Contra. I think the desire of the Republicans to create a scandal here has really undermined any ability to have a credible look at what actually happened."

After the exhaustive speech, Wallace attempted to conduct an interview and Smith used the opportunity to attack Wallace and Fox News.


WALLACE: Well, Congressman Smith, let me push back on you on several of those points. We now know -

SMITH: I'm not surprised, but go ahead.

WALLACE: Well, that is what I'm here for, sir. I'm not a potted plant. I'm here to ask some questions. We now know that there were 11 different versions of the talking points, 11 different versions --

SMITH: I thought it was twelve.

WALLACE: May I just please go ahead?

Wallace's evocation of "potted plant" is a clear hat tip to attorney Brendan Sullivan who served as counsel for Lt. Col. Oliver North during the Iran/Contra hearings in the mid 1980's and who used the famous "I'm not a potted plant" line to respond to senators complaining about North consulting his attorney during questioning.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Koppelman at The New Yorker is usually a reliable apologist, if not cheerleader, for the Obama Administration. But even Koppelman seems to have had enough with spokesman Jay Carney's transparently deceitful assertion that the White House was truthful when they maintained that only one word was changed in the talking points supplied to Amb. Susan Rice days after the Sept. 11th Benghazi attacks.

by LARRY O'CONNOR  12 May 2013

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

For the Obama Administration to effectively use the media to push their agenda, they need publications like The New Yorker to march along and repeat their spin without any concern that they might be caught in a big lie somewhere down the line. Unfortunately for them, the Benghazi debacle seriously undermines that effort.

As Koppelman writes:


The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

When you've lost The New Yorker...

___________________________________________________________________________________

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Call it “Oval Office Couch Syndrome.”

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.



For the record, this is what the CIA “generated”:

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.


• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and @josephcurl.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/#ixzz2TBjDidMG
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter