More questions than answers
As Jay Carney heads to the podium, the comments from Vice President Biden and Stephanie Cutter on Libya created more questions than answers about the administration’s knowledge and handling of the attack. Yesterday both Cutter and Biden’s preferred timeline of the events in Libya grossly contradicted public reports. Biden and now the campaign have contradicted the State Department regarding whether the Administration knew about the requests for more security. And the administration continues a defensive posture that prefers to obscure the facts over providing details to the American people.
The American people deserve straight talk from this administration on the terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11.
We have offered six questions for press secretary Jay Carney to clear up what the administration knew about Libya and when.
- Why didn’t Vice President Biden know that the consulate had repeatedly asked for more security?
- Administration officials keep maintaining that they gave the American people intelligence as they received it. If that is true, why have we learned every new piece of information about the attacks from the media, not the administration? It seems implausible that news outlets like the Daily Beast have better intelligence than the U.S. government.
- If the administration gave information as they received it, why did the President go to the United Nations and talk about the video, days after reports that the attack was pre-planned?
- Does the administration dispute the many reports that the intelligence community had indications this was an al-Qaeda attack, “within hours” following the attack?
- If the President really called this an “act of terror” day 1, why did he demur when asked about it weeks later on The View? Why did he not address “terror” specifically again until pressed by the media weeks later?
- Does Jay Carney still believe the attack was “not in response to U.S. policy, not in response to, obviously, the administration, but in response to a film.” as he said on 9/14, one day after the Washington Post reported that the “assault had been planned” by “well-armed militias.” If not, why did he say so in such an explicit fashion? And if they were just giving intelligence as they had it, why was the Washington Post so far ahead of the administration