We have well documented the CNN White House protectionist propaganda in such a manner as we never expected we would be able to document so openly. Here and again HERE and again HERE and even again Here.
It really is brutally obvious at this point; so obvious in fact that few could even attempt to discharge or ignore the point.
To think that a few years ago people never understood the filter in front of their eyes. Thank goodness for the internet, research, and honesty. I digress… we continue….
The latest example was evident last night on the Erin Burnett show, “Out Front”, when she engaged the Benghazi story with an “exclusive” of sorts.
“Exclusive” in that the CIA held, according to CNN, a “press briefing” on Benghazi. Please note the term “press briefing”, then note the “briefing” only consisted of one reporter: CNN’s Susan Kelly.
You might say, who the heck is Susan Kelly? Well, Susan Kelly is the “Senior Intelligence Reporter” who suddenly and mysteriously *poof* appeared once the damning State Dept e-mails were
released leaked to the media. As soon as the details of the cover-up began to sneak out into the narrative former intelligence/security correspondant Fran Townsend was quickly dispatched and replaced on all shows by the-all-of-a-sudden appearing Susan Kelly.
Anyway, here is the transcript of the propaganda with emphasis from me:
And now, our fifth story OUTFRONT: Breaking new, new details on the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. An intelligence official this afternoon holding a very rare briefing with reporters to defend the CIA, giving a detailed timeline of events leading up to the attack. And this afternoon, our Suzanne Kelly was the only television reporter invited to the briefing and she’s OUTFRONT tonight.
So, Suzanne, what did they tell you?
SUZANNE KELLY, CNN INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Right, Erin.
Well, a senior U.S. intelligence official who offered almost really a minute blow by blow of what happened the night of the attack, saying they felt passionately about what they said are the facts after FOX News reported last Friday that officials within the CIA’s chain of command denied repeated requests from its officers on the ground to assist during the attack on the U.S. mission, and were actually ordered to stand down.
Now, that senior official said it just never happened. The official insisting that the CIA operators on the ground were in charge of what they did and when they did at that night, and that the safety of those who were repairing to respond was also an important consideration.
The officials saying there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.
BURNETT: And a briefing like this, I know, is very rare. So when you think about why did that, Suzanne, I mean, is it because of the pressure they’ve been under? What’s your understanding?
KELLY: I think that’s a fabulous question, Erin. The reason being, there are really two different Benghazi stories. There’s the story of what actually happened that night and those people who are on the ground, under fire, who were responding, trying to make difficult decisions and then there’s the political story and you know as well as I do how politicized this story has become.
How much did the administration know? When did they know it? What should they have done differently?
I think five days before an election for them to come out, for any intelligence official to come out and really feel passionately about setting the record straight tells you that they really feel like the people who are out there doing the work are really getting a disservice sort of by the back and forth of all of this.
So you look at the political and you look at the intelligence community as sort of the accounts on the ground and the tick tock and sometimes they don’t always match up.
*snip* Ok so a “rare” CIA press briefing was held with “one reporter” to outline the “detailed moment by moment” event….. aaaaaand what exactly did SUSAN KELLY just reveal from that super rare “briefing with reporters”? Huh?…. You getting this?
BURNETT: All right. Suzanne, thank you very much.
Thank you very much for what?
And Peter Brookes was a deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush. Nick Burns, former undersecretary for political affairs on the Democratic side, and Republican.
Good to see both of you.
Let me just ask you your reaction first to this, Peter, to Suzanne’s reporting what the CIA says happened. What do you say?
PETER BROOKES, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, as a CIA alumni, I’m not surprise told at the bravery of these officers. I mean, these people have been at war for many years now and their bravery is no surprise whatsoever. I’m sure they went and did what they felt they needed to do to protect their fellow — their colleagues as well as other Americans. I think we’re deeply indebted to them.
BURNETT: Nick, Eli Lake from “The Daily Beast”, I know you’re familiar with his reporting. He’s done some fantastic reporting.
He’s saying the State Department never requested military back-up the night of the Benghazi attack. Normally that would have been the responsibility of the ambassador who of course was in the heat of the moment there. So that then would have fallen to the State Department to make that decision, and as we know, they could hear it in real- time.
Does this surprise you?
NICHOLAS BURNS, HARVARD’S KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: You know, Erin, I have to say, I served not just in Democratic administrations but in Republican administrations —
BURNETT: Yes, indeed.
BURNS: — including the administration of George W. Bush — I really find it disturbing that people are trying to make ultimate judgments about what happened in Benghazi based on piecemeal reports. The only responsible way for us to proceed is to listen to Ambassador Pickering who has been asked by Secretary Clinton to undertake an investigation or review of what happened. He has not come out with his report yet.
And, you know, we’re right before an election. This has been politicized, as your reporter said, and not by the administration. And I just think it is disturbing that somehow all these reports come out piecemeal and people try to draw a broader conclusion. We really owe it to everybody in concern to take a deliberate look at this and I actually think it’s best that this come out after the election so it’s not political.
BURNETT: What’s your response to that? At this point, should we just wait here? Another couple of weeks. And there are going to be hearings to really find out the time line.
BROOKES: Well, I agree with Nick to a point. And he is right. We’ve been getting these piecemeal reports, but almost eight weeks after this tragic event, there are more questions than answers and they persist. And I think it’s unfair to the American people, and it’s wrong that we don’t have these answers.
Why are we having this intelligence briefing by a senior unnamed intelligence official as opposed to having a time line from the government two months after this tragic event? I don’t understand it. That’s why I think people are very suspicious and very skeptical.
*snip* Gotta step in here again…. “Intelligence briefing”? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot… This was one “supposed” CIA guy talking to one “supposed” CNN reporter…. call it what it is: A single cover story provided to only one media person. Period. Sheeeesh….
So, I agree with Nick to a certain point but I think we should have more transparency on this issue at this point.
BURNETT: Nick, what about that? I mean, why is it that it is behind closed doors and so rare, and you can’t name the person. Why not just put it out there in the public realm with your name on it?
BURNS: Well, of course, I don’t know anything about the briefing that took place. I just heard about it for the first time, listening to your broadcast. But I can say this, I do think the president and Secretary Clinton made the right decision here. And that is to order an independent, objective investigation and review and that’s underway. And sometimes these things take time. And they don’t lend themselves to people’s political calendars.
I also think, the two most important issues here that are getting lost is, what can we do to upgrade embassy security? And that means that Republicans and Democrats should fully fund in the Congress and receive security. And can we go after the groups that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues?
President Obama said he will do that and I trust President Obama is trying to do that. I think that’s where we should be putting our attention, especially this week.
*snip* Short version, quit asking questions… this is not ok… it’s election week….
BURNETT: Peter, a final question to you. Is it possible that we may never know why certain crucial pieces of information that were known to some people very early on were not shared with the American public? That we’ll never know whether there was a concerted decision and who made it?
*snip* laying the cover groundwork for a story that will never be told…. insufferable…
BROOKES: Well, that would be a shame. It would be a problem, a travesty. And I think this is why Congress really needs to dig into this. We deserve answers. Certainly the families of those who lost their lives bravely defending the American sovereignty and American interests certainly deserve those answers and I think that should be — we should come to some sort of conclusion on that.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thanks very much to both of you. We appreciate you men being on together again. (Transcript link)
Mission Accomplished !
You really should look up the interview on line to see how ridiculous it actually was, the transcript does not do it justice. You can watch the video CLICK HERE