CBS Anchor to Rubio: What Do You Mean Hillary 'Lied' About Benghazi?

Townhall.com ^ | October 29, 2015 | Guy Benson

[Kaslin]

Marco Rubio embarked on something of a post-debate victory tour today, visiting six national morning shows to reflect on last night's proceedings. One of his stops was CBS This Morning, where puzzled host Charlie Rose pressed Rubio about what he meant when he said that last week's Benghazi hearings proved that Hillary Clinton had lied.  The Florida Senator basically reiterated his explanation from last night (via the Weekly Standard):

Charlie Rose Sticks Up for Hillary in Interview With Rubio

Rose counters with Clinton talking points, muddying the waters by blaming confusing and conflicting intelligence offered by the CIA -- but as they say, that dog don't hunt:

Ex-DepCIA dir: WH blamed: "Benghazi attack on the video which is not something CIA did in its talking points or in its classified analysis"— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) October 29, 2015

Hillary's email to Chelsea on the night of Benghazi unequivocally blamed an Al Qaeda offshoot (Ansar Al-Sharia) for the attack; her discussion with an Egyptian official the next day made her position even more explicit:

Stood in front of 4 flag draped coffins and blamed YouTube pic.twitter.com/NoUZhytQTN— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) October 22, 2015

The deadly "planned attack" had "nothing to do with the film," and was "not a protest." Her words. Yet days later, the administration was telling the public precisely the opposite, with Hillary Clinton repeating the protest/video lie to grieving family members' faces. It's almost as if the Obama-Clinton team was worried about how voters might perceive a preventable, pre-planned terrorist attack on the anniversary on 9/11, especially after Democrats had been pushing the "Bin Laden is dead" theme so hard on the campaign trail. These political concerns were evident in Hillary Clinton's emails with henchman Sidney Blumenthal, as well as in a belatedly-released memo from a senior White House advisor that finally became public last year.  Let's be perfectly clear: The former acting CIA chief said the video protest fable did not originate from the intelligence community.  David Petraeus testified that the US government knew Benghazi was a premeditated attack "almost immediately."   State Department documents confirm this. And Amb. Chris Stevens' second-in-command testified that the obscure online film was a "non event" on the ground in Libya.  Clinton's duplicity was also on display at the Benghazi hearings regarding the "unsolicited" nature of the off-the-books intelligence from Blumenthal, as well as her shifting definition of "work-related" emails that she withheld while swearing she withheld nothing.  While we're on the subject of Hillary's dishonesty and the agency she used to lead, Politico has reported on "new inconsistencies" arising from her testimony:

One of Clinton's assertions fell into doubt Friday as the State Department said it was unaware of any basis for her claim that the agency "had between 90 and 95 percent of all [her] work-related emails" even before she turned over 54,000 pages of records last December. "I'm not aware that we have given that figure," State spokesman Mark Toner told reporters on Friday. "We've not been able to confirm that. I not sure where that information comes from"...Asked about Clinton's assertion at the hearing, a Clinton campaign aide returned to the March statement and referenced new disclosures about weaknesses in State's recordkeeping system, but notably declined to repeat her new claim.

One more Benghazi-related note, breaking today:

#BREAKING: The Committee has received new documents from the White House related to the military response to the #Benghazi terrorist attacks— Benghazi Committee (@HouseBenghazi) October 28, 2015

Strange, isn't it?  We've endlessly been told that this select committee is a duplicative waste of money and time, and yet here they are unearthing additional relevant documents -- all of which were supposedly turned over years ago, according to the administration.

[BobL]

“fought hard”

Even that is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Rubio GAVE COVER to Republicans on the fence in the Senate. They SPOUTED about how they simply followed Rubio’s lead...

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Why do any of these people go on these “known” lefty leaning shows? The only people watching those are rabid liberals who would never change their mind. I think it is a total waste of their time...boycott them. Hell, they got ratings this morning for Rubio. Sort of like selling tickets to people so they can watch the Christians be eaten by lions. Nothing in it for the Christians...why participate?

[BobL]

“So you would vote for Hillary and not Rubio because of amnesty?”

Yep, as ANY REPUBLICAN wishing to have a voice after 2016 (or any Republican with kids). Rubio WILL get his Amnesty through...Hillary will at least have some opposition.

Instead of attacking me, how about asking Rubio why HE LIED TO HIS VOTERS and support the ABSOLUTE WORST Amnesty plan ever attempted by Congress?

[Popman]

So you think amnesty under Clinton would be the same as a Rubio plan?

You may not believe it, it but some type of amnesty will happen, next Congress...

If you don’t think so, you aren’t living in reality...

The only question is which amnesty plan do you want: Clinton or a potential Rubio plan....

Go ahead and vote for Hillary....I’m sure you will never regret it...

I prefer a self deport plan, but I’m not a scum sucking congress critter....

[BobL]

“You may not believe it, it but some type of amnesty will happen, next Congress...”

Suck me. It didn’t happen when the DEMOCRATS owned the House and had 60 votes in the Senate - so why should I believe your claim, considering there is not A SINGLE PERSON expecting the Dems to be in better shape, in Congress, than in 2009? In fact, the Senate is 50/50 and the House is about 95/5 chance to stay Republican. If you have ANYTHING to contradict that, please provide a link.

You may WANT Amnesty - that is YOUR PROBLEM - but it is not a very popular positing ON THIS SITE if you intend to keep your log-in.

[Verginius Rufus]

Maybe she is complaining on Fox News because none of the other news outlets will give her air time. Her son is dead because of the incompetence, or worse, of Obama and Hillary, but she gets strong-armed when she tries to learn the truth about her son’s death.

[Popman]

How ironic, I should worry about keeping my log on for proposing that amnesty might happen next congress all the while you are voting for Hillary Clinton over one issue...

You cannot be that (l’ll be kind) myopic...

[Bob]

Just to be sure that BobL sees your reply.