Reuters: White House TOLD OF militant claim two hours after LIBYA ATTACK, emails show

They came out for two weeks claiming that they were still investigating and that there may have been a connection to the widespread protests concerning the video. Not even the timeline compiled by hack's that bravo has posted does anything to disprove that.

That is nonsense... this was Carney a few days after the attack...

“This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

That isn't a hedge and he is not the only one to say it in such a matter of fact way. He did not hedge it with a 'we are still investigating'. He outright blamed the video.



The right wing echo chamber seems to act as if the protests and any connection to them was completely fabricated by the administration. That's just not true. They were happening and members of the press were making the connection with or without the administration. The administration did not plant these ideas and did not have enough information to argue the connection was totally implausible.

This is simply not true. See again the quote from Carney above. If need be, I would imagine I can find one that occurred right after the attacks.

It STILL seems there was SOME connection. That does not mean it was the only motivating factor. Again, the emails do nothing but show that the administration had some reason to accept the early narrative.

No, it does not seem like this was an attack based on the video. Who are you hearing that is still suggesting anything of the kind?

The ACTUAL motivations are not really relevant and I don't care if you get a statement from every one of the terrorists claiming that they enjoyed the movie. There is still no reason to pretend this entire incident is somehow Obama's fault or that he did anything wrong in response. There is absolutely no proof of a coverup or that the administration purposely misled anyone.

I am not suggesting they purposely misled at first. But after the first week, the mentions of the video should have stopped. No one said it was Obama's fault, but he most certainly did respond poorly. He should have sent in fighter support, he should have sent in special forces, he should not have had his admin spokespeople blaming the video, the State Dept should have had better security at the embassy. There were plenty of mistakes.

Nobody in their right mind understands why "acts of terror" insufficiently demonstrated the administrations understanding of this as a terrorist attack. Rabid nutjobs see some sort of codeword in it, I guess, or Obama was supposed to know the secret handshake to demonstrate his understanding of it as terrorism. Can you explain it?

Yes, very easily. His admin personnel continued saying that it was due to the video. So Obama saying it was an act of terror while others in his admin were saying a video sparked it seems to indicate he either had no clue or he had no control over his subordinates.

Partisan??? Lol... I am still not voting for/supporting any Democrats. If Feingold runs again, maybe I will. However, I have supported several Republicans. The partisan nonsense is all yours.

Yes, you are spouting partisan nonsense.
 
Airplanes being used by terrorists, first time as missiles, but in some capacity.

Ok... so we knew they may target airplanes... but what exactly could he have done to prevent the attacks? She said he could have protected the WTC towers. I asked her how.
 
That is nonsense... this was Carney a few days after the attack...



That isn't a hedge and he is not the only one to say it in such a matter of fact way. He did not hedge it with a 'we are still investigating'. He outright blamed the video.

That quote was in response to a question about unrest in the region, not about what happened in Benghazi. He was asked later in the same press briefing about what happened in Benghazi and whether it was in response to the video and this is what he said:

MR. CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region --

Q At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --

MR. CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Q But the group around the Benghazi post was well armed. It was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?

MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –


Q But your operating assumption is that that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework? That’s the operating assumption?

MR. CARNEY: Look, it’s not an assumption --

Q Because there are administration officials who don’t -- who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.

MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation.
The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.

So let's not say things that are just not true. OK?
 
I'm not re-litigating the Iraq War, Yurt. You can view the situations as similar, but I sure as shit do not. The Bush Administration flat lied about what the intelligence community said about Iraq and chose to believe certain aspects of the intelligence while discounting other views that didn't fit its narrative.

good choice not "re-litigating" the issue. it would be embarrassing to see your double standards. good move.
 
That quote was in response to a question about unrest in the region, not about what happened in Benghazi. He was asked later in the same press briefing about what happened in Benghazi and whether it was in response to the video and this is what he said:



So let's not say things that are just not true. OK?

Is there something in the transcript you posted that I missed? Because I don't see Carney telling reporters they knew it was indeed a terrorist attack, which we now know they knew 2 hours after the attack. It certainly appears to read as if he is saying it's still under investigation and they just don't know. Which we now know, was a LIE. Too bad you weren't around to give Carney the advice of not saying things that just aren't true.
 
That quote was in response to a question about unrest in the region, not about what happened in Benghazi. He was asked later in the same press briefing about what happened in Benghazi and whether it was in response to the video and this is what he said:



So let's not say things that are just not true. OK?

The quotes are right in front of you.....there's a transcript......wtf do you want....it couldn't be clearer what was said and wasn't said........
 
Ok... so we knew they may target airplanes... but what exactly could he have done to prevent the attacks? She said he could have protected the WTC towers. I asked her how.

Well, he should have ignored the attacks on 9/11 completely, and headed off to Vegas, leaving his press secretary to explain to us how the planes flown into buildings was a spontaneous uprising over a video or something. If Bush had simply pretended a terror attack never happened, and had his administration keep insisting it wasn't a terror attack, there never would have been a terrorist attack, he would have prevented it by imagining it never happened, don't you see?
 
That quote was in response to a question about unrest in the region, not about what happened in Benghazi. He was asked later in the same press briefing about what happened in Benghazi and whether it was in response to the video and this is what he said:
So let's not say things that are just not true. OK?

ROFLMAO...

Funny where you cut off.... just for the record, here is the entire thing.... the only thing I am cutting is the parts not pertaining to the attacks...

MR. CARNEY: All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for being here.

snip... opening comments...
And with that, I’ll take your questions.

Q Jay, thanks very much. On the Libya attacks, was there any intelligence in advance that some kind of attack could take place, especially because so many embassies were taking precautions because of 9/11? Was there any advance warning at all?

MR. CARNEY: I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.

... snip... unrelated....

Q Jay, as you know, the unrest in the Middle East is spreading to other embassies -- U.S. embassies. The President’s critics are saying this is an indictment of his handling of the Arab Spring, that this has given rise to further inflamed sentiment among Islamists. What’s his response to that?

MR. CARNEY: Let me say a couple of things. First of all, we are obviously closely monitoring developments in the region today. You saw that following the incidents in response to this video, the President directed the administration to take a number of steps to prepare for continued unrest. And I noted yesterday in my gaggle that Fridays have tended to be days when protests are larger in the Muslim world, and we were anticipating that.

When it comes to criticism, I would note that many observers, commentators, foreign policy experts, as well as elected officials -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have pointed out that the criticism in particular from Governor Romney and his team, in what seems to be an attempt to score a political point, has been both factually wrong and poorly timed.

Now is a time when Americans should be coming together. The President is attending a ceremony this afternoon for the return of remains of four U.S. personnel who were killed in Libya as a result of this unrest. And his focus is on ensuring that U.S. personnel and our facilities are protected. That is why he directed his administration to ensure that security would be enhanced around the world at our diplomatic facilities.

He has, as you know, because we’ve read out these phone calls, had numerous conversations with leaders in the region including the Presidents of Egypt and Libya. He sent a message, a personal message to the leader of Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan, asking for his assistance to speak out against the violence. And I think you saw that the Prime Minister did that. And the President is very appreciative of these statements and the actions these leaders have taken personally.

President Morsi again today as well as yesterday has spoken out against any violence and committed himself to protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in Egypt.

We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

Again, this is not in any way justifying violence, and we’ve spoken very clearly out against that and condemned it. And the President is making sure in his conversations with leaders around the region that they are committed, as hosts to diplomatic facilities, to protect both personnel and buildings and other facilities that are part of the U.S. representation in those countries.


Q My colleague from the Associated Press asked you a direct question, was there any intelligence suggesting that there would be an attack on the U.S. consulates. You said that a story -- referred to a story being false and said there was no actionable intelligence. But you didn't answer his question. Was there any intelligence, period -- intelligence, period -- suggesting that there was going to be an attack on either the embassy --

MR. CARNEY: There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is -- I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false.

Q Why was there not adequate security around Ambassador Stevens?

MR. CARNEY: In terms of the security at the Benghazi facility or post, I would have to refer you to the State Department for specifics about what security was there. There was a security presence. It was unfortunately not enough to resist the attacks that we saw and resulted in the tragic loss of life. But there was security.

It is also the case that in reaction to this the President has ordered that we review all of our security arrangements for embassy facilities and other diplomatic facilities around the world. But in terms of the specific security that was in place at Benghazi, I’d have to refer you to the State Department.

Q Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The President is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be --

Q But saying you’re very vigilant and being very vigilant are different things.

MR. CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region --

Q At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --

MR. CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Q But the group around the Benghazi post was well armed. It was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?

MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –

Q But your operating assumption is that that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework? That’s the operating assumption?

MR. CARNEY: Look, it’s not an assumption --

Q Because there are administration officials who don’t -- who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.

MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.

What is true about Libya is that -- well, a couple of things. One, is it’s one of the more pro-American countries in the region. Two, it is a very new government; it is a country that has just come out of a revolution and a lot of turmoil, and there are certainly a lot of armed groups. So the fact that there are weapons in the region and the new government is not -- is still building up its capacities in terms of security and its ability to ensure the security of facilities, is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.

Q Jay, my last question. It was said that what happened on 9/11 was a failure of imagination, failure of American policymakers and counterterrorism officials to anticipate the kind of attack that could have taken place. This would seem to be the exact opposite. Was this a failure by the Obama administration? Did the President and his administration mess up in any way?

MR. CARNEY: Jake, again, what we have seen is unrest around the region in response to a video that Muslims find offensive, many Muslims find offensive. We have seen incidents like this in the past, in reaction to other actions -- cartoons and other actions that have been taken, that have been -- have led to protests and violence in the region. And we have managed those situations, and we are working to ensure that our diplomatic personnel and our diplomatic facilities are secure as we deal with the response to this video, which we believe is offensive and disgusting.

Q So that’s a no? Entirely the fault of the filmmaker?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t think -- I think you have to understand what is happening currently in the region and what it is a response to. This is not -- this has been in --

Q I don’t think I need to understand that. I think the people who protect the embassies need to understand it.

MR. CARNEY: The cause of the unrest was a video, and that continues today, as you know, as we anticipated. And it may continue for some time. We are working with governments around the region to remind them of their responsibilities to provide security to diplomatic personnel and facilities, and we are ensuring that more resources are put in place to protect our embassies and consulates and our personnel in these parts of the world where unrest is occurring.

Q Thank you.

Q You’ve mentioned a number of times now that this was in response to a video or a film. Would you not agree, though, that it’s moved beyond that? That some are stirring violence by focusing on U.S. policy, or targeting the U.S. in general? That it’s no longer just about the film?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the reason why there is unrest is because of the film; this is in response to the film. I don’t doubt --

Q Well, that’s what sparked it. You think that’s what sparked it.

MR. CARNEY: We do think that’s what sparked it.

Q Right. But it’s moved beyond that, hasn’t it?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t -- we obviously are not polling protesters to find out what their motivations are. There is no question that there’s anti-American sentiment in various countries around the Middle East; that’s not a discovery I think we’ve made today. What is the case is that the protesters in these countries are not representative of the broader sentiment in those countries, at least in the sense that -- sentiment that would say that the reaction, the proper reaction to a film that is offensive is violence. As I said yesterday, that’s not in keeping with Islam, and it’s certainly something that we do not accept. And we have made clear to leaders in the region that they need to make clear that it is not an acceptable reaction to a film, however offensive it might be.

Again, this is not a film that the United States government had anything to do with. We reject its message and its contents. We find it both disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs, and that history goes back to our nation’s founding. But there is absolutely -- as I’ve said, absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence, and we are making -- we are working, rather, to make sure that Muslims around the globe hear that message.

Q It’s my understanding that at least four people have been arrested in the death of the Americans. Does the President think that whoever is arrested for this violence should be tried here in the U.S.?

MR. CARNEY: This is an ongoing investigation. We’re obviously working with our -- with the Libyan government on this matter. The President has made clear that he wants the assailants, the attackers to be brought to justice. But I am not going to prejudge outcomes or courses of action as this investigation is underway.

snip... question on Iran...

Nancy.

Q I want to go back to Jake’s question for a minute because it seems like the point he’s asking is not what the cause of the unrest was, but whether there are lessons to be learned by this administration or by the State Department, or by the military about safeguarding diplomatic personnel or restricting their movements, especially in a country as volatile as Libya.

MR. CARNEY: Well, this is under active investigation and it’s certainly a reasonable question. And it stands to reason that there may be lessons learned, as there always are when you have investigations into incidents like this.

My point was simply that we are responding to and coping with and dealing with, with countries around the globe, unrest brought about by this offensive video, and taking action to ensure that security is enhanced and augmented at diplomatic facilities around the globe.

Q On Egypt, can you clear up whether the country is an ally or not? The State Department says it is; the President says it’s not an ally, but it’s not an enemy.
 
continued...

MR. CARNEY: I think you may have heard me, anyway, address this yesterday. Let me be clear: Egypt is a critical, strategic partner of the United States. As you know, the President had an important conversation with President Morsi very early yesterday morning, very late at night in Colorado, about the need to protect our embassy and our personnel in Cairo, and the need to denounce the violence.

President Morsi expressed his condolences for the tragic loss of American life in Libya, and emphasized that Egypt would honor its obligation to ensure the safety of American personnel. The President is very appreciative of the statement President Morsi made and for the actions he has taken to date to secure our embassy.

Let me make clear that the President’s interview with Telemundo was not in any way an effort to change our relationship with Egypt. We have had a longstanding partnership with Egypt and have supported their transition to democracy, and we are now working to build our relationship with what is obviously a new government.

Q We were told that the President was blunt and perturbed in that conversation with President Morsi. What was he concerned specifically about when it comes to the way that President Morsi handled the early hours of this unrest?

MR. CARNEY: The President was very clear with President Morsi about Egypt’s responsibilities as a host nation to provide security to diplomatic facilities and diplomatic personnel. And it was a very productive conversation, as I said yesterday, and it was substantive and long. I wouldn’t necessarily use the adjectives you did to describe how the President felt about the call. In fact, it was a very focused and productive conversation.

snip... sequester question...

Q Jay?

MR. CARNEY: Yes.

Q Folks at State have said that there was a review of security at diplomatic installations in light of the upcoming 9/11 anniversary. Was there also a review in light of the possible impact of the trailers from this film?

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the State Department. Again, there is always, annually, as well as other moments -- predictable moments on the calendar, measures taken, precautions taken with regards to security both at our facilities abroad, but, of course, here in the United States. And we’ve been transparent in briefing you about when those moments occur and some of the things that are done to help enhance security.

With regard to the specific preparations for 9/11, I would refer you to the State Department for -- as it applies to diplomatic installations.

Q Are you suggesting the impact of the film was less predictable?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m saying that the fact that the film was about to inspire this reaction -- well, again, I don't want to -- this is all under investigation, so I don't want to get that far ahead of -- or get ahead at all of the investigation. I would refer you again to the State Department for whatever precautions were taken for diplomatic facilities in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary.

Q There’s also a lot of attention on how the President gets his daily briefing, at least in recent days. And the indications are that it has been in written form in the past week or so. Is it your sense that a briefing in person is no more efficient, no more effective than giving the President his PDB in print?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear, because it’s selective representation of the facts about the last few days. Just in the last 24 hours, the President has been briefed numerous times, directly, by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, by Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough, by Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, and others, including a secure call at 2:00 p.m. yesterday and another briefing at 10:00 p.m. yesterday. And he did, as he does every day, obviously have a presidential daily briefing today, and constant updates from his team.

I would say that this debate, when you say there’s been some criticism, the quarters from which that criticism come are pretty clear, and who occupies those quarters is pretty clear. And I would simply say that this President is a absolutely responsible and voracious consumer of the presidential daily briefing and of the information provided to him by his national security team. His record of evaluating and acting on intelligence I think speaks for itself. And I’ll leave it at that.

Q Is the criticism less valid because of the quarters from where it comes? The question remains whether --

MR. CARNEY: He gets his -- but what is the question? He gets his presidential daily briefing every day. He has --

Q The crisis -- the President speaks directly to his national security advisor. Obviously, the suggestion here is that’s a more efficient way of communicating than getting a written briefing.

MR. CARNEY: No, he gets both. He does both. He does both all the time -- all the time. And when he is here in Washington he has briefings in person in the Oval Office with his national security team regularly. And when he is on the road, he has phone conversations that supplement and augment the briefings he receives on paper that are specific to the so-called PDB. I hardly think that is different from previous Presidents. And again -- well, I’ll leave it at that.

Q You, in answering the previous questions, have said there was no actionable intelligence with regard to the facility in Benghazi, the consulate in Benghazi itself. Can you say the same with regard to the rest of Libya and the rest of the Middle East?

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the DNI and to others. The report was -- I mean, I just -- the report was specific to Benghazi, and we know for a fact that that report is false.

Q But, I mean, the Cairo embassy was breached as well. Was there any intelligence that would --

MR. CARNEY: I haven’t asked that question, so I’ll have to take the question.

Q There was an indication that the President around the U.N. meetings would be meeting with President Morsi on the periphery as these things go. Is that meeting still on?

MR. CARNEY: Well, you just asserted something that was on that you said there was some discussion about, so you kind of did two things in that questions.

The President has no bilateral meetings scheduled at this time while he’s in New York.

Q Formal or informal in any way, shape, or form?

MR. CARNEY: None that I have to announce at this time.

Q And on a larger sense, does the President or does the White House feel that relations with the Muslim world in general and the Arab countries in particular are better now than when he took office?

MR. CARNEY: We have witnessed historic change in the region in just the last few years. This President’s approach to what has been called the Arab Spring, to this unrest has been to lay out a set of principles and support for human rights, and to make clear that we support a process of non-violent, political and economic change and reform in the region. That looks different in different countries.

There are countries where the transition has occurred or is occurring, like Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Tunisia. And in those countries, we are working to help those new governments consolidate their democracies, deal with security needs, and stabilize their economies. In other places like Syria that are still in the throes of a revolution, we have vocally opposed the brutality of the regime and are supporting the aspirations of the people.

You’ve heard us document and discuss the non-lethal support we’re providing to the opposition, the over $100 million in humanitarian aid that we’re supplying to the Syrian people, and the diplomatic support that we’ve provided them.

This is a circumstance of dramatic change that has come because of a fervent desire by people of the region to have greater rights, greater freedoms, greater control over their lives. And we have actively engaged in the region to support non-violent democratic transition, to support governments that profess and demonstrate support for civil rights of all peoples, both genders and minorities. And we are working with these countries to help them progress in a way that is better for the people of those countries and better for the national security interest of the United States.

Q All great intentions at this moment, embassies across the region are under siege, so it appears that the message isn’t getting through.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I appreciate the question, or the statement, rather. But the unrest that we’ve seen is in reaction to a film with which the United States government had no involvement, which we have denounced is offensive.

And as I said yesterday, obviously, it can be difficult to understand in some countries why the United States can’t simply eliminate this kind of expression. But as you know, it is in the absolute core of our being as Americans that we allow freedom of expression that is written into our Constitution and is one of our fundamental principles. And protecting speech, even offensive speech, is a foundational principle of our democracy. But we can nevertheless denounce and condemn expressions of speech that we find offensive, and we have made that clear around the world, as well as here in the United States.

Yes, Jared.

Q I think you just answered my question.

MR. CARNEY: Excellent.

Q The Muslim Brotherhood in both Egypt and Tunisia has kind of suggested they want the U.S. and the Obama administration to apologize for this video. Is that something you all have considered doing or have done?

MR. CARNEY: Absolutely not. We have made clear that we find it offensive and reprehensible and disgusting, but we -- I mean, if in that sense, you mean we have denounced it, we have said we find it offensive and reprehensible, but we will not -- we cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country. It is a foundational principle of this nation.

Q Jay, freedom of expression issues aside, do you know of any government agencies who are trying to get to the bottom of who produced this video? Is there any reason --

MR. CARNEY: I don't. I’ve seen a lot of reporters attempting to find out its origin, buy I have not heard of any. But I just -- you would have to direct that at some other agencies. But not that I’m aware of.

Q Do you see any reason for any federal agencies to look into it?

MR. CARNEY: I don't. I think based on what I’ve just said, the issue here isn’t -- we all know what the film is and its contents and understand why it is offensive to Muslims. We also understand that there is no justification for violence and reaction to that, and have made that message clear around the world.

The President has made statements, the Secretary of State. We have consulted with leaders -- Muslim leaders around the world and asked them to make clear that violence is not an acceptable response to this film.

Q Was the President made aware of this film before or after the violence?

MR. CARNEY: Made aware of the film?

Q Right. Because it seems like you’re pinning a lot of this on the film. I’m just curious when the President was aware of a film that could be potentially incendiary.

MR. CARNEY: I would have to take the question. I’m not aware of -- I certainly wasn’t aware of the film before there was unrest related to it.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on -- you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that's true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that -- the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Christi.

Q Jay, did the White House ask YouTube to take that video down?*

MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, I’d have to -- I don't believe so, but I’ll have to take that question.

Q Or anybody in the administration?

MR. CARNEY: We’ll have to take it.



snip... chicago teachers strike questions...

Yes, Jon-Christopher.

Q Jay, it seems like the unrest has now spread through the Sudan as of this morning. Can you shed any light on any conversations the President has had with his closest allies -- for example, Great Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron, President Hollande of France, or Chancellor Merkel in Germany?

MR. CARNEY: About the unrest?

Q Yes, any conversation they may have had very recently.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have any other foreign leader conversations to read out. We’ve read out a number of them in the last 24 to 36 hours, but I don’t have any other --

Q They didn’t include those top allies?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any calls with any other foreign leaders to read out.

Q Will he be talking to them over the weekend do you think?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a schedule to announce of foreign leaders calls. It’s always possible.

Leslie.

Q Can you go back a little bit on the call that he made to the President of Egypt? Was there anything in particular that prompted that call? And apparently they’ve erected a new fence -- a wall overnight, a concrete wall. Was that discussed during the call with the President? Is that something --

MR. CARNEY: I don’t think specific measures were discussed. The point of the call -- remember, he made several -- he has made several calls to leaders in the region -- was to discuss with them the unrest and the measures that these countries are taking to ensure the security of diplomatic facilities and American personnel. And that was the crux of the conversation with President Morsi.

Q Did he express displeasure with the initial reaction from the Egyptian government and ask them to --

MR. CARNEY: We gave a readout of the call. I don’t really have more for that -- more on that for you. I think he made clear that we have an important strategic partnership with Egypt. We are working very closely with Egypt and the government there to assist it in helping it stabilize the situation in the country and helping its economy improve as it transitions to democracy.

But the President also made clear that Egypt has obligations, as do other countries in the region and countries all over the world, to ensure that diplomatic representations in those countries are secure. The whole point of embassies and diplomatic facilities, the purpose behind them is to allow for the peaceful interaction between nations to build relationships, build partnerships, and to avoid conflict. And that is why it is so important that embassies, consulates, other facilities, and personnel are protected.

Yes, Alexis.

Q Jay, you were talking about the U.S. experience with reactions to either accidental or purposeful anti-Muslim -- burning of Qurans, et cetera. So my question is, are U.S. personnel who are abroad, who are seeing this erupt now over what you’re saying is, as far as we know, just based on a film reportedly by anti-Muslim folks -- is there a concern in the U.S. government that this would encourage others who have these motivations to continue trying to inject these thoughts into that part of the world where this reaction could be predicted? And is the United States or the government making any additional effort to either surveil to protect American personnel or monitor this information, or to consider this almost like an act of war, to be continuing to inject that kind of thought into that region?

MR. CARNEY: Alexis, I think we have as a nation been in a posture, especially since 9/11, but even prior to that, where we have monitored and been aware of anti-American sentiment in that region of the world and elsewhere. And obviously, we are absolutely vigilant and continue to be, and that is the work of many agencies, in particular the intelligence community.

Since 9/11, we have seen periods like this where there has been an unrest in reaction to specific incidents, including Danish cartoons and including other incidents that have taken place that have offended Muslims in different countries and led to unrest directed at either the West or specifically at the United States. And this is something that both this administration and the prior administration have had to manage.

In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is -- has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe.

And we continue to pursue policies in the region that are aimed at helping these countries that are in transition, through this traumatic transformation that's happening, towards democracy, towards a better future, and towards -- we hope and are working for -- a strong, better relationship with the United States.

snip... unrelated...

Q Jay, notwithstanding your explanations today for the reasons for the violence in the Middle East, there are Republicans -- Donald Rumsfeld, John McCain -- who say the attacks on our diplomatic posts in the Middle East are a result of perceived American weakness. Do you want to respond to that?

MR. CARNEY: I'll just go back to what I said, which is that this is a time when it's in the best interests of the country to focus on the four personnel, the four Americans that we lost in Libya and who are returning home today, and on the measures that we need to take as a nation to deal with the unrest in the region and deal with the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel abroad.

We are happy to debate -- and there is certainly ample time and appropriate times to debate foreign policy approaches, this President's record on foreign policy, and contrast it to other approaches and other records.

And there will actually be a formal occasion in which foreign policy will be debated as part of the presidential campaign debates. And I'm sure there will be much discussion of it prior to and after that debate. We're very proud of the President's record on foreign policy and are happy to make the case at the appropriate time. Thank you all.

Q Jay, one last question -- while we were sitting here -- Secretary Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said -- Senator Levin -- I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can -- now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it's actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly -- I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Thanks.

Q Week ahead, Jay?

MR. CARNEY: Do we have a week ahead? I don’t have one yet, so we’ll have to put it out on paper. Thank you.

END
12:38 P.M. EDT

How many times did he state something to the effect of 'we don't have evidence that is was NOT the video'??? He laid blame for the unrest, including Benghazi, on the video. He hedged and said everything was still under investigation. But he came back, over and over again to the video. Even at the end where he could have said 'we are not sure what was behind the attack', he instead said 'we have no evidence it wasn't the video'.

you can pretend all you want that it isn't true, but he clearly kept steering the conversation back to blaming the video and not US policy/etc...
 
continued...



How many times did he state something to the effect of 'we don't have evidence that is was NOT the video'??? He laid blame for the unrest, including Benghazi, on the video. He hedged and said everything was still under investigation. But he came back, over and over again to the video. Even at the end where he could have said 'we are not sure what was behind the attack', he instead said 'we have no evidence it wasn't the video'.

you can pretend all you want that it isn't true, but he clearly kept steering the conversation back to blaming the video and not US policy/etc...

It was both, why is that such a hard concept to adapt. The USA allows free speech. It is our policy, there are countries where citizens can not understand this concept. They believe the government should have on control over speech.
 
It was both, why is that such a hard concept to adapt. The USA allows free speech. It is our policy, there are countries where citizens can not understand this concept. They believe the government should have on troll over speech.

But it WASN'T both! It's a hard concept to adapt because it's not true. The attack on our consulate in Benghazi, the deaths of 4 Americans, including our Ambassador Christopher Stephens, was a planned coordinated terrorist attack by an alQaeda group, on the anniversary of 9/11, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with any video. AND... The White House KNEW this 2 hours after it happened! While the Ambassador was still ALIVE!
 
continued...



How many times did he state something to the effect of 'we don't have evidence that is was NOT the video'??? He laid blame for the unrest, including Benghazi, on the video. He hedged and said everything was still under investigation. But he came back, over and over again to the video. Even at the end where he could have said 'we are not sure what was behind the attack', he instead said 'we have no evidence it wasn't the video'.

you can pretend all you want that it isn't true, but he clearly kept steering the conversation back to blaming the video and not US policy/etc...


Let's back up a minute. Your claim is that Carney did not say that the Benghazi attack was still under investigation and that he blamed the video. That's just not true. He said quite the opposite.

You are conflating his comments about unrest in the Middle East generally, which includes the Cairo demonstrations (which were about the video) and other demonstrations. To be fair, Carney does his best to stay away from specifics, but when pressed specifically on Benghazi, he didn't affirmatively say that it was about the video. He said it was under investigation and they don't have concrete evidence showing that it was not about the film.

It's classic PR flim-flammery to be sure, but Carney didn't say what you said he said about Benghazi.
 
Let's back up a minute. Your claim is that Carney did not say that the Benghazi attack was still under investigation and that he blamed the video. That's just not true. He said quite the opposite.

You are conflating his comments about unrest in the Middle East generally, which includes the Cairo demonstrations (which were about the video) and other demonstrations. To be fair, Carney does his best to stay away from specifics, but when pressed specifically on Benghazi, he didn't affirmatively say that it was about the video. He said it was under investigation and they don't have concrete evidence showing that it was not about the film.

It's classic PR flim-flammery to be sure, but Carney didn't say what you said he said about Benghazi.

But that's a lie because we now know from emails, they knew 2 hours after the attack, precisely who was responsible and that it wasn't a "spontaneous uprising" as he continued suggesting for two more weeks.
 
But that's a lie because we now know from emails, they knew 2 hours after the attack, precisely who was responsible and that it wasn't a "spontaneous uprising" as he continued suggesting for two more weeks.


Pretending that a report about what a terrorist group says on Facebook and Twitter 2 hours after the attack is (1) the truth (note that the same group later disclaimed responsibility) or (2) the considered judgment of the CIA and the intelligence community is tremendously stupid.

The considered judgment of the CIA for 11 days after the attack was that it was a spontaneous event following the protests in Cairo. And, yes, the matter was (and is) still under investigation.
 
It was both, why is that such a hard concept to adapt. The USA allows free speech. It is our policy, there are countries where citizens can not understand this concept. They believe the government should have on control over speech.

which has nothing to do with what I stated. The point is that Carney continually tried to blame the video for the attack. Over and over and over again... it is quite apparent for all to see, even the press kept pushing him his stance
 
Let's back up a minute. Your claim is that Carney did not say that the Benghazi attack was still under investigation and that he blamed the video. That's just not true. He said quite the opposite.

You are conflating his comments about unrest in the Middle East generally, which includes the Cairo demonstrations (which were about the video) and other demonstrations. To be fair, Carney does his best to stay away from specifics, but when pressed specifically on Benghazi, he didn't affirmatively say that it was about the video. He said it was under investigation and they don't have concrete evidence showing that it was not about the film.

It's classic PR flim-flammery to be sure, but Carney didn't say what you said he said about Benghazi.

Clearly you cannot read the transcript of the press conference. AS I stated, he hedges by saying 'EVERYTHING is still under investigation' but he goes ON to say over and over and over again that it is all due to the video. The press called him out on it and he even ended the conference with the 'we have no evidence it WASNT the video.'

But I know, polly has his partisan blinders on once again.
 
Pretending that a report about what a terrorist group says on Facebook and Twitter 2 hours after the attack is (1) the truth (note that the same group later disclaimed responsibility) or (2) the considered judgment of the CIA and the intelligence community is tremendously stupid.

The considered judgment of the CIA for 11 days after the attack was that it was a spontaneous event following the protests in Cairo. And, yes, the matter was (and is) still under investigation.


Oh nonononono!! They are right...less than 120 MINUTES have expired since the tragedy occurred, but President Obama is TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE and should have had every single fact checked, re-checked and verified and then gotten those fact checked facts out to the public!

It was totally acceptable for them when Bush lied about Iraq for EIGHTEEN MONTHS after 9/11, but those same "truth seekers" believe Obama MUST have known all the facts within 120 minutes.
 
Back
Top