A Nation that Lives off of Lies

APphoto_APTOPIX Police Shooting Missouri

A Nation that Lives off of Lies

By Mario Murillo

No young man should die at 18 years of age.  Michael Brown should be alive and his parents should not be suffering this unspeakable loss.  We all extend our heartfelt condolences to them at this time.

Last night we saw riots.  But here’s the thing, the looting, burning and shooting was based on a lie.  In fact, so much of what America has become is based on lies.

Police brutality is real, wrong and must be stopped. But it will not be eradicated by a lie.

With reason, compassion and grinding honesty the Grand Jury in this case fretted, grieved and separated fact from fiction.  The physical evidence showed that this was not about race but about a 6 foot 4 inch 296 pound man who an eye witness wrote “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.” The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn’t stop.”

140812-michael-brown-1338_8c5ad41dd423c28ed02e37e39222844e

America had a rare glimpse at honesty when St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch (a Democrat) with great care, thoroughness and patience explained the verdict, and answered questions.   He told the truth.   It enraged some of the reporters because it did not feed the lie that sells their rags.  Michael Brown will be canonized as a civil rights hero but that too will be a lie.

The disease extends way beyond black leaders and media shills.  We as a nation are now almost wholly dependent on keeping lies alive for a living.

Look at the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama lied when they told you that the Benghazi terrorist attack was about a video. Why did they lie?   Obama had to lie to be reelected.  Hillary agreed to lie because of her presidential aspirations.  They are living off of a lie.

Our military says the Fort Hood terrorist attack was “workplace violence.”  Again this is a lie that saves some of the brass their jobs.

Jonathan Gruber was caught telling us that Obamacare was built on a lie and that we were too stupid to know that.  He made 3 million dollars promoting the lie.

The biggest lie we have heard yet is that amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants is a good thing.  The Democratic Party is lying to stay in power with the Latino vote.

Illegals have also been told a lie.   We have no jobs for you!  The same party that let you in has created economic policies that killed jobs.   Obama has not created jobs for Americans, much less millions of the largely ill-educated and unskilled newcomers.

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

Republicans are also starting to live off of a lie.  With Obama’s executive order, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner just witnessed the greatest act of tyranny against the constitution ever and they will not confront it.  They said “we do not want to appear negative and we want to focus on jobs.”  Oh yeah?  Whose jobs are you trying to save?   Who will stand up for the Constitution?  A true patriot doesn’t live for the short term gain but for the legacy of liberty!  This was an outrage that went unanswered.

Living off of lies is trickles down to all parts of our culture now.  Kim Kardashian must sell that lie that to be a meaningful woman you must take off your clothes.  Eminem must keep the lie alive that dropping “F” bombs at an event honoring veterans is “artistic expression.”  Ben Affleck must suffocate reason in order to call Islam a religion of peace.  On and on it goes.

The American church is not exempt!  Pastors who build an empire on messages that deliberately leave out the Cross, personal repentance, sacrifice and discipleship and the power gifts of the Holy Spirit are also living off of a lie.  While it brought crowds it weakened them.  With all moral lines blurred by celebrity ministers the church is powerless to stop America’s free fall.

Jesus said, “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” Matthew 7: 26, 27.

Every lie will be tested.  There is a storm coming that will expose it.  When lies collapse it is breathtaking.

Look at yourself.  I do not care what job you have or how famous you are…speaking truth, living truth and loving truth is your only safety.  If it hurts your career so be it!  If you lose friends let them go!

reagan blog

We are watching the last gasps of America’s greatness unless we must find people who want to live off of truth.

It is time to go back to what made us prosperous, great and safe.  We believed that our word was our bond.  We believed that convictions mattered more than connections.  We celebrated integrity instead of rewarding infamy.  We knew filth, vileness and treachery when we saw it.   We believed that honesty was its own reward and that God was the only one we needed to please.

You and I can still find treasure.  Tell the liars that you want the real riches that are reserved for those who shake off the lies.

Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners,    Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.  He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.  Psalm 1: 1-3

Why today’s hearings are the beginning of the end of Obama.

BENGHAZI HEARING REVELATIONS: ‘THE YOUTUBE VIDEO WAS A NON-EVENT IN LIBYA’

 370
 4
 758

Benghazi “whistleblowers” head to House committee

A Libyan man walks past the closed US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on October 11, 2012.

A Libyan man walks past the closed US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on October 11, 2012. /ABDULLAH DOMA/AFP/GETTYIMAGES

Hoping to funnel into one chronological timeline the rampantly varying accounts of how President Obama’s administration responded last Sept. 11 in the wake of an attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday will hear from three “whistleblowers” expected to offer testimony enormously at odds with the administration’s characterization of a strike that killed four Americans.

Testifying are Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya. Excerpts of an interview Hicks did with investigators that were released to CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday boomeranged the Benghazi politics back into the spotlight four months after hearings on the issue in the House and Senate.

According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.” But on Sept. 16 – five days after the attack – U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the Sunday show circuit, peddling the theory that the strike began “spontaneously” out of protests in Egypt and was not a premeditated terrorist act. Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” that day was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.”

  • Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go”
  • Issa: “No question” Clinton’s circle involved in Benghazi “cover-up”
  • Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told “you can’t go” to Benghazi during attacks

“I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks told investigators of Rice’s appearances.

The top official in Libya after Amb. Chris Stevens died in the attack, Hicks said he was never consulted about the administration’s talking points that puppeteered Rice’s remarks: “I was personally known to one of Rice’s staff members,” he said. “Even on Sunday morning, I could have been called, and, you know, the phone call could have been, ‘Hey, Greg, Amb. Rice is going to say blah, blah, blah,’ and I could have said, ‘No, that’s not the right thing.’ That phone call was never made.”

Administration officials have staunchly stood by Rice, whose vilification after the attack cost her top billing on the short list to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At a Tuesday night gala at which Rice was receiving an award, Vice President Joe Biden said she had “the absolute, total, complete confidence of the president.”

Critics, though, of the Benghazi “cover-up” have continued to rally attention to the White House’s bungled talking points, as well as reports that the State Department deliberately declined requests for additional security in Benghazi.

Issa: “No question” Clinton’s circle involved in Benghazi “cover-up”

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who will oversee Wednesday’s hearing, told CBS News on Monday that the administration’s ever-evolving statements were likely perpetrated by political concerns, three weeks out of a major election. Or, he suggested, “it could be a general want to believe that we’re closer to an end of the war on terror than right in the middle of it.”

Issa said he expects this week to find someone from Clinton’s circle – if not the former secretary of state herself – at the heart of covering tracks after any missteps by the administration. Clinton testified on Benghazi in January before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she took responsibility but conceded there was no “clear picture” of what happened Sept. 11 as the situation unraveled.

“If Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the before, during and after mistakes… it’s somebody close,” Issa said. “There certainly are plenty of people close to the former secretary who knew, and apparently were part of the problem.”

Those close to Clinton who may have engaged in “deliberately, premeditated lying to the American people,” Issa said, could include Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy or Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department. Hicks said one day after Rice’s media blitz, he called Jones to inquire about the source for the ambassador’s statements; the tone of her answer – “I don’t know,” he continued – indicated that “I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked.”

Earlier this week, Fox News reported that Thompson plans to testify Wednesday that Clinton attempted to cut out the counterterrorism bureau from communications about the attack – a charge that would likely cripple her pristine record as secretary, as well as any chance that she’ll mount a presidential bid in 2016.

Citing in particular Hicks’s claim that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attack was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate said during a Tuesday edition of “Flash Points” that the reputation of the administration, as a whole, hangs in the lurch.

“The stakes are pretty high,” Zarate said. “If it turns out that there’s some indication that the White House or others were not only manipulating talking points, framing how Susan Rice was talking about this on the Sunday talk shows, but was actually trying to construe this in a way that demonstrated it wasn’t a terror attack, and that actually impacted our response – the fact that perhaps they didn’t put things in motion was because it was purposely not being treated or discussed as a terror attack from the get-go, that’s a real problem.”

Benghazi: Beginning of end

By Dick Morris

Americans can stand pretty much anything, but not being lied to by their president. When Bill Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, his personal favorability ratings dropped 20 points and never recovered for the duration of his presidency.

As the Benghazi hearings unfold, it will become more and more clear that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied to the American people when they both pretended that the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were just a demonstration against the anti-Muslim video gone violent — even as the State Department wrote an intelligence assessment that said “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” were involved in the attack.

Is it possible that the president and the secretary of State were denied access to this information? Is it possible that a low-level employee at State decided to alter the intelligence report and did not consult with his higher-ups about doing so? Is it possible that Clinton and Obama did not know the truth? No, it is not possible. They had to have known. And that makes their remarks for two weeks after the attack out-and-out lies.
Beyond the cover-up lies the question of why we were not more robust in our military intervention on the ground as the attack was being waged. Special forces nearby in the country were apparently ordered to “stand down” from responding to the attack. Is it possible that this order was given without consulting with the president or with the secretary of State? While possible, it is most unlikely. This was no minor attack, and the use of American forces eight weeks before an election would certainly need to be cleared with the commander in chief.

Are Obama and Hillary really going to stake their future political credibility on the idea that they were out of the loop during this crisis? Are they really going to try to sell the idea that they were not informed by their own employees?

Even if they try to sell this bill of goods, it won’t succeed. For Americans to believe them, we would have to believe that Obama was so distracted by the presidential campaign that he was practically out of office when it came to crucial national security issues — as if he should have invoked the 25th Amendment citing as his disability the fact that he was busy running for a second term.

The reality, which will become more and more apparent to everyone, is that he was busy claiming credit for extinguishing terrorism by killing Osama bin Laden and that he was not about to compromise that claim by admitting that al Qaeda could pull off an attack in Benghazi. He wants us to ignore the curious timing of the attack on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This attempt is, of course, doomed to fail. Once we learn — as we have already — that the intelligence reports were doctored, and that the military actions were aborted, it is only a matter of time until the blame filters up to Obama and Clinton, ruining one presidency and possibly preventing another.

Presidents fail when they get “stuck,” when their past statements tie them down and deny them the freedom of maneuver that presidents need to survive. Former President Nixon got stuck in Watergate. Former President Reagan got stuck in Iran-Contra. Former President Clinton couldn’t get around his lie about Lewinsky. Former President George W. Bush, who did not intentionally lie, was stuck by his claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now Obama is stuck also. Hillary, too. They will not be able to free themselves or save themselves. The die is cast.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of 16 books, including his latest, Screwed and Here Come the Black Helicopters. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to dickmorris.com.

A crime far, far worse than Watergate must be punished or freedom dies.

Until Friday, there were two possible explanations for why the White House failed to immediately call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. One was incompetence, the other was worse.

Now there is only one, and it is the worse one. Based on the persuasive testimony of ex-CIA boss David Petraeus, it is clear the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to mislead Congress and the American people.

The repeated claim that the attack was spontaneous and grew out of a demonstration against an anti-Islam video — a claim made by the president and secretary of State as they stood next to the bodies of four dead Americans — was a monstrous lie. It was vile and done for the basest of reasons.

Because we now know the truth of what happened — CIA reports were edited to remove the names of al Qaeda groups involved in the attack, Petraeus said under oath — we also know the motive. It was political self-preservation, meaning the president and his team put politics first.

The timing helps tell the tale. Just days removed from his Charlotte convention, where he danced on the grave of Osama bin Laden and boasted that al Qaeda was decimated, Obama couldn’t bear to admit that affiliated groups were thriving in North Africa. And he certainly couldn’t admit they had carried out a murderous attack on our consulate on the 11th anniversary of the most awful day in American history.

To do so would be to acknowledge the failure of his decision to ignore hard-line Islamists and that his team had erred egregiously in rejecting pleas for more security from Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens.

So the president lied, including in a speech to the United Nations, where he cited the video as the reason for the attack. He sent out reams of flunkies to do the same, including his snide press secretary, Jay Carney.

Most notably, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday television shows to spin the nonsense about the hijacking of a demonstration — a demonstration that never existed. Rice made a fool of herself, and now, she, too is damaged goods.

Oddly, Petraeus, brought down by the reckless affair with his biographer, nonetheless looks like the only honest man in the drama.

A briefing he gave soon after the attack is now more suspect because it adhered to the party line, despite his belief that it was always a terrorist attack.

But Friday in his testimony behind closed doors, Petraeus told the truth as he knew it, even though the administration announced the day before that it was investigating his conduct at the CIA.

– MICHAEL GOODWIN   NEW YORK POST

PROOF: OBAMA REFUSED TO CALL BENGHAZI ‘TERROR,’ CBS COVERED UP

PROOF: OBAMA REFUSED TO CALL BENGHAZI ‘TERROR,’ CBS COVERED UP

by JOEL B. POLLAK    5 Nov 2012, 8:04 AM PDT 

In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the  media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack “terrorism” from the beginning.

CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama’s behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.

That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss–and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election–perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.

Fox News’ Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.

How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more.

Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.

Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama’s re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues–namely, a terror attack and the president’s dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration’s shameless lies.

Left There to die.


The lead editorials in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal today offer stinging critiques of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi.

The Post notes that what happened in Benghazi “increasingly looks like a major security failure” and argues, “sooner or later the administration must answer questions” about that failure and “the policies that led to it.”

Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency? The result is a host of unanswered questions.

Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency?

The result is a host of unanswered questions.

Following a single background briefing, the State Department has mostly refused to respond to inquiries about Benghazi, citing an ongoing investigation by a review board. But considerable evidence has emerged that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and his security staff were deeply concerned about what they considered to be inadequate security. Fox News reported this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, at which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.

Fox reported that the cable, dispatched to Washington, said the emergency meeting included a briefing about al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area and Islamist militias, including those that allegedly carried out the Sept. 11 attack. In another cable on Sept. 11, hours before the attack, Mr. Stevens described “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the local militias and police, to which the State Department had entrusted the consulate’s defense.

Separately, according to a report on ForeignPolicy.com, Mr. Stevens may have dispatched a letter to Benghazi authorities, complaining that a policeman assigned to guard the consulate was photographing it on the morning of Sept. 11.

The Journal argues that the Obama administration has sought to avoid accountability by offering “evasive, inconsistent and conflicting accounts about one of the most serious American overseas defeats in recent years.” The editorial continues: “Unresolved questions about Benghazi loom over this election because the White House has failed to resolve them.”

Among those unanswered questions:

“Why did the U.S. not heed warnings about a growing Islamist presence in Benghazi and better protect the diplomatic mission and CIA annex?”

And:

“What exactly happened on the day of 9/11? During the over six hours that the compounds in Benghazi were under siege, could the U.S. have done more to save lives?”

And:

“What was President Obama doing and ordering his subordinates to do in those fateful hours? Why has the Administration’s story about what took place in Benghazi been so haphazard and unclear?”

These questions, and many others, need answers. The administration has managed to avoid providing them for nearly eight weeks, with a much needed assist from a suddenly lack of curiosity among the truth-seeking journalists at many of America’s most influential news outlets. Perhaps after the election that curiosity will return.

The State Controlled News Media

This is a cover up that is far greater than Watergate.  The President of the United States refused 3 times to send help to Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans including Navy Seals.  He literally sent them to their death rather than face the potential scandal of a failed rescue mission.

Most damning is the hideous WHY of his actions.  He did it because he wants to be reelected.   With all of my heart and all of my strength I am going to continue to speak out about this disgusting scandal until the day of the election.

President Obama, you are lying when you say that there is an ongoing investigation.   After you ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden, you could not wait to reveal the details of the mission.  You even released classified information that no responsible Commander in Chief would have released.  You leaked the identity of our informant, the very man who found Osama’s hideout, to the Pakistani government and sent him to prison.

How could you sit there and say “NO” 3 times to the very Navy Seals who said “YES” to you when you ordered them to get Bin Laden?

How can you say you need more time before telling us the truth?  You were watching the attack on a live feed from the situation room even as it was happening.  The attack went on for 7 hours.  We now know that you were made aware of the attack at 4PM on September 11th.    The attack continued until almost 11PM that night! How could you sit there and say “NO” 3 times to the very Navy Seals who said “YES” to you when you ordered them to get Bin Laden?

Your next two actions boggle the mind.  With 4 Americans dead and our embassy invaded you went to bed and then left for Las Vegas to a fundraiser.   For the next several weeks you ordered your administration to lie to the American public and blame the attack on a video instead of Al Qaeda.

STATE CONTROLLED NEWS MEDIA: In the face of such evil you would expect the same media that investigated Watergate to do even more with a scandal that is far and away a much graver misuse of power.   ABC, NBC, CBS, we look to you to tell us the truth instead; you are a firewall for the President in a way that would make Stalin and Mao envious.  

My friend we now have before us the most chilling reality that any Democracy can face.   We now have state controlled News Media.   In full lockstep with the President, they dispense talking points from the White House.   Now we know just how far they will go to reelect Obama…even to extreme of refusing to see the evil, hear the evil, or speak out of the evil of state sponsored murder and cover up.  

Guess who refused to help the Americans in Benghazi?

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012    • BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Read how the White House refuses to answer any questions.

(CNSNews.com) – The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.

The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack.

“I have been asked by one of our spokespeople to relay ‘that we decline to comment,’” said White House National Security Staff aide Debbie Bird in a written response to CNSNews.com.

CNSNews.com had asked Bird: 1) “When did the President first meet with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12?” 2) “When did White House staff first discuss the substance of the e-mails that went to the White House with the President or with the National Security Advisor?”

Carney also took a question about the e-mails today during a press gaggle held aboard Air Force One at 9:34 a.m. A reporter asked: “Jay, there are some emails that have emerged, which suggest that the White House and other areas of the government were told within hours of the Benghazi attack that an extremist group had claimed responsibility. How is that compatible with the idea that it was a spontaneous attack?”

Carney downplayed the significance of the State Department emails.

“There were emails about all sorts of information that was becoming available in the aftermath of the attack,” Carney said. “The email you’re referring to was an open-source, unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in.

“The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible,” said Carney, “and I would refer you to what we’ve already said about, and what the DNI [Director of National Intelligence] has already said about, the initial assessments of the intelligence community, and the fact that throughout this process, I and others made very clear that our preliminary assessments were preliminary, that an investigation was underway, and that as more facts became available, we would make the American people aware of them.

“Again,” said Carney, “this was an open-source, unclassified email about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact. That’s why there’s an investigation underway.”

The NSC is chaired by the president, and includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. A NSC meeting would allow the leader of the intelligence community to communicate directly with the leader of the State Department in the presence of the president and for all of them to weigh any conflicting information.

The three emails in question, which were obtained by CBS News, were sent by the State Department to various government officials, including two officials in the Executive Office of the President, on Sept. 11, 2012, while the attack on the Benghazi was taking place and immediately after it had taken place.