BBC Issues Quasi-Apology On Benghazi Coverage


Mark Mardell, North American Editor of BBC News:

After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.

Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.

This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.

Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”

There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.

State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.

In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.

I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.


However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.

This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.

The cover-up was obviously politically motivated. The shit hit the fan less than two months before an election. That reaction is understandable and yet still deplorable. So far all the focus has been on the cover-up. But what were they covering up?

Was it merely a case of bad judgment or was this some secret CIA/State Department joint operation that went bad? Hopefully the US media has finally awakened from their five year slumber and will finally begin to do their job.

Yeah, I know. Hope is not a strategy. Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

BTW – Whatever they were covering up, then-CIA Director Petraeus apparently didn’t want to play ball. This makes his sudden departure all the more suspicious.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Benghazi, Media Zombies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to BBC Issues Quasi-Apology On Benghazi Coverage

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I wonder if whatever the CIA was involved in Benghazi with was something Petraeus didn’t approve of but got overruled by higher-up?

    • yttik says:

      Who is higher up than a General??

      Never mind, I don’t think I want to know.

    • Constance says:

      I can’t believe Patraeus wife didn’t know about his affair and as long as they have been married she probably didn’t care. The girlfriend slinks around and gives BJs on demand and the wife has the status, children, wealth, respect etc, not a bad deal. I agree Patraeus wouldn’t play cover up or dive in front of the Obama bus, the Obots threatened him, he said go right ahead and “out” me I’m not going along with the Obama program.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Why is it that “covert operations” in other countries end up being a bigger secret here than there?

  3. myiq2xu says:


  4. myiq2xu says:
    • angienc (D) says:

      That’s a bad part of town with lots of gang related activity so I doubt this was an attack like the Boston Marathon — probably innocent bystanders caught in cross fire.
      Still tragic, of course.

  5. foxyladi14 says:

    Since 2009, the administration has used the act to prosecute six government officials. Meet the whistleblowers.

  6. angienc (D) says:

    Exactly why did this asshat think the questions beginning 9/12 after we were handed that ridiculous “it was because of a video” story were merely partisan attacks? He gives *absolutely* no support for that knee jerk reaction of his to *believe* authority without question (which is the *opposite* of what journalists are supposed to do, hence the basis for the 1st Amendment).

    I bet he thinks Romney gave that woman cancer.

  7. ecoast says:

    This AP report on Benghazi was filed on Saturday. WH deep background happened on Friday afternoon.

    A NoQuarter commenter (Deapster) thinks Babington was pushing deep backgorund talking points below. Decide for yourself.

    AP writer Charles Babington obviously drank the Kool-Aid dispensed at the secret White House press briefing on Benghazi. It helps to stand back a bit to see his formulaic approach that will now undergird the rewriting of the history of this event.

    1. Claims the incident was heavily politicized from the start and will be used a a wedge issue in coming elections.

    2. The administration earlier inquiry (Pickering) was sufficient and low-level functionaries found at fault have been dealt with.

    3. Conservative activists are trying to still feed a conspiracy theory for political gain, on their terms and their timing.

    4. Democrats claim voters won’t like Republicans exploiting Benghazi deaths.

    5. Conservatives are using this to make broadsides against 2016 front-runner Clinton.

    6. Issue is too complex for most voters to understand.

    7. The security breaches before, the transactions during and cover-up issues after are too confusing and don’t carry equal moral weight so concentration only on the White House cover-up loses moral weight.

    8. Republicans misusing this event for fund-raising and upcoming election value, because they are now the desperate

    9. Republicans are terrified Clinton will walk into the White House in 2016 and are pulling all stops to dirty this us to prevent this from happening.

    10. The Benghazi hearings are only an attempt to prevent Hilary Clinton from becoming President in 2016.

    11. Benghazi is no more politically useful than the attempts to make Fast and Furious an anti-administration scandal.

    12. Repubicans are trying to concoct some hidden mystery, when in fact the President already called it an “act of terror”.

    13. The topic will only remain “white-hot” among conservative talk shows.

    • Constance says:

      Hhhhmmm. Well why should the Republicans worry about taking out Hillary when her own party will take her out in 2016 like they did with their sexist attacks on her in 2008. And don’t forget the 2008 Democrat corruption of the primary process to knock out Hillary. I see no reason why Republicans should worry about Hillary.

    • Karma says:

      Oh yeah, those talking points came directly from the WH. Number six is their tell. The public is too stupid to understand. How many times have we heard that from Obama as an excuse for his failures?

      Geez…the whole list/article is their tell. Like Helen has said, stenographers, all of them.

  8. DeniseVB says:

    Okay, sifting through the heads’a ‘sploding on all the media/blog/twit’books postings, here’s my favorite ๐Ÿ˜€

    • Constance says:

      Judge Jeanine says it all clearly. And she is right anyone associated with the Obama administrations handling of Benghazi should be ashamed.

  9. Karma says:

    So years ago while watching PBS, Frontline and Nova, they did an excellent doc on the October Surprise in 80 and Iran/Contra. Which dealt with the Iranian hostages and the deals Carter and Reagan/Bush were negotiating with Iran. Which is illegal for Reagan to do as a candidate and was against long standing US policy of not negotiating with terrorist, but Carter was worried that he would loose if he didn’t start negotiating.

    Carter’s deal had more money, arms, military equipment/supplies, and badly needed parts to repair current equipment, etc than Reagan’s, but it was a one time deal. Reagan’s wasn’t.

    So of course, the Iranians went with Reagan. Those items were delivered by Israel, yes Israel. And since Iran was technically our enemy and gearing up for war with our ally, Iraq. Reagan/Bush went to Saddam and gave him a bunch of equipment, money, arms, spare parts, etc so as not to tilt the war in Iran’s favor.

    It also showed how that hostage negotiation deal lead to Iran/Contra and other payments for hostages. The next doc they showed was about Bush 41 and the first Iraq war. Which had audio of someone in his Admin complaining about their stock portfolio looking sad. And Bush replying that they needed to find a war in some third world country. It then showed their tax forms and all the financial moves they made to benefit from the upcoming war within their blind trusts. The false incubator baby claims, the whole nine.

    Anyway, the investigative reporter was Robert Parry, who was friends with another investigative reporter, Gary Webb, who was famous for researching how Iran/Contra helped to flood our streets with cocaine in the 80s, and also getting stabbed in the back by the entire MSM. Here are some links to old articles by Robert Parry on these topics,

    The new October Surprise series

    Since we are discussing the possibility of a secret arms deal blowing up in their faces. I thought it might be interesting for some review how it worked in the past.

    Here is a recent article dealing Watergate, Iran Contra, and the October Surprise.

Comments are closed.