Who Started The Benghazi 'Real time' video Falsehood

[Bill USA]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/who-started-the-benghazi-real-time-video-falseh/192380

Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple has been working doggedly (Fox News and Benghazi Video: for Real?) to correct one of Sean Hannity's favorite false claims about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi: that State Department officials watched "real-time" video of the assault from an office in Washington, DC. Wemple's efforts got an assist from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on January 23: "There was no monitor, there was no real time." As Wemple's debunking of the falsehood makes clear, Hannity has been the primary driver of this claim by repeating on a near-daily basis. But the "real-time" video falsehood did not start with the Fox News host. In fact, one of the first mentions -- perhaps the first -- of the spurious Benghazi video was on Jennifer Rubin's Washington Post blog.

The whole story starts with an October 10, 2012, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. At that hearing, Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, had this exchange with Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), describing how she followed via telephone the developments in the Benghazi attack as they were happening:


[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #000000;"]LANKFORD: Mrs. Lamb, can you clarify for me, where -- where were you working September 11? Were you in the Washington area -- were -- in the main facility there?

LAMB: Yes sir. I was in the D.S. Command center on the evening of the event.

LANKFORD: You -- you -- you note that in your testimony that you were in the Diplomatic Security Command Center and then you make this statement, "I could follow what was happening almost in real time."

LAMB: That's correct.

LANKFORD: So once they hit the button in Benghazi, you're alerted, it says you could have. Did you follow what was happening in real time at that point?

LAMB: Sir, what was happening is they were making multiple phone calls and it was very important that they communicate with the annex in Tripoli because this is where additional resources were coming from. So they would hang up on us and then call back.

LANKFORD: But you're -- but you're tracking it back and forth what's going on.

LAMB: Yes absolutely. [Transcript via Nexis, emphasis added]

That night on Fox News' Hannity, Liz Cheney seized on Lamb's testimony, but characterized it correctly:

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #000000;"]
CHENEY: Today, we learned from Charlene Lamb under oath that she followed, you know, the diplomatic security official, that she followed what was going on, minute by minute. She was following it in real time. So the administration knew in real time, there wasn't a mob, they knew in real time that this was a well-coordinated attack. They knew in real time that it involved heavy weaponry, this was clearly a terrorist attack and the American people have clearly, as you've said, been lied to.


The following morning, October 11, Jennifer Rubin posted a video of Cheney's Hannity appearance in a post headlined "Real-time Libya: Who knew what, when?" In that post, Rubin claimed (citing no other sources) that Lamb had watched a "real-time video" of the attack -- something neither Lamb nor Cheney had said:

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #000000;"]
Seriously, something doesn't make sense. Do we think no one else ever got the benefit of that information that mid-level bureaucrat Charlene Lamb had? This was the most urgent issue of the moment in which everyone (the White House, the public, the media) wanted to know what happened in Benghazi. So why not look at the real-time video? Why not ask Lamb what she saw and heard?

(more)

also on GOP's 'reality tv' act at Benghazi hearings show: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280586

[catbyte]

1. A Drudge fever dream?

[Faygo Kid]

2. Jennifer Rubin is jaw-droppingly terrible

She's like watching a train wreck, you can't look away - obsessive and nearly insane. Can't help but join the many on her blog who absolutely rip her to shreds. Romney was Mr. Perfect all last year, then she threw him under the bus so fast after the election that it made heads spin. A dedicated neocon whose loyalty is always first to Bibi and the right wingers in Israel and who beats the drums for war (for others to fight, of course), she is absolutely obsessed with Chuck Hagel, writing numerous cartoonish blogs every day accusing him of everything but Beyonce's lip synching.

She is pathetic, which is why she gets attention - and as a prowar neocon, she fits in with Editor Fred Hiatt perfectly.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Ann Coldturds sister .

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Who lied first isn't the question, Hannity

lies continually and to scads of idiots .

[TwilightGardener]

5. Jennifer Rubin--how she earns a WaPo paycheck every week, I have no idea.

She's a female Drudge for them--and wrecking their reputation.

[nenagh]

6. Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell, spilling secret CIA information...on YouTube..

"and it's true we have signal intelligence that the militia members in Libya were watching the demonstration in Cairo...and it did sort of galvanize their effort"... Is approx what Paula Broadwell told a whole roomful of alumni...

[JDPriestly]

7. These people lie when they claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama did not tell us

that this was a heavily armed attack. Listen to Obama's speech in the Rose Garden and Hillary's even clearer statement about it on SEPTEMBER 12, 2012, the day after the attack.

Nothing was hidden.

The FBI is investigating who did it. There is a video that we have now.

Fox News and the Republicans simply have not investigated the facts that are readily available. The Dayton newspaper even published an article about an interview of the guy who was standing as security (employee of a private firm) at the consulate door in Benghazi prior to the visit of the Turkish ambassador and who spoke to our ambassador prior to the Turkish ambassador's visit and the entire attack.

There is no doubt legitimately classified information about the attack that we do not know, but the only reasons Fox News and the Republicans don't understand what happened is that they are first, ignoramuses who don't pay attention and second, because they don't want to.

[Bill USA]

10. they are using the Big Lie tactic here. There is absolutely NO REASON for them to make these

outrageous statements, as you have pointed out. Plus, in this kind of situation, it takes a while to get good reliable intell as to who was behind the event, was it planned etc.

The Repugnants know this. But the idea is to keep asking questions and making nonsensical bullshit accusations because they know that to a non-critical thinking public, if they hear certain claims/charges made often enough, a certain proportion of them will start to think "well, there must be SOMETHING to it" or "I'll bet there is more to this than they are telling". And of course, the Corporate media reports everything the GOPers say, not as if it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim or an insinuation of some plot on the part of the administration - but as if they are legitimate questions/accusations raised by politicians actually interested in helping to strengthen our country in such matters.)

Of course, in matters of security, there often is more to it than is being told. But that's because they are still trying to track down the SOB's who attacked us! Just as police investigating a crime don't want to reveal everything they know since it could jeopardize catching the bad guys and bringing them to justice... the same is true in matters of international terrorism. But the Repugnants are williing to jeopardize all this to score some fraudulent points against the Democracts.

Who needs al Kaida when you've got the calculating, treacherous GOP.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Here's a rule I'd like to see

Every time someone goes on the news and deliberately lies, we cut off one of their fingers.

No one at Fox would be able to hold a coffee cup.

[Bill USA]

9. they wouldn't have any toes either! LOL!