The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Trump Sought To Backtrack His Obama Comment (VIDEO)

When four US citizens (Embassy officials, security detail, and US Ambassador Stevens) died in the US Consulate attack in Benghazi, both President Obama and Security of State Clinton met the returning Americans in death.

Image may contain: 1 person, outdoor

After the death of four US Green Berets in Niger not only did Trump avoid mention of the deaths, he played golf upon their arrival back to their country.


Not only has Trump failed in showing any level of concern or respect for the deceased Army Special Forces, he has only initiated contact with the families of the dead after a typically disgusting response to a reporter's questions during yesterday's Rose Garden (Mitch McConnell) fiasco.

For two full weeks, Trump has avoided any mention of the deaths of four American Green Berets in the African nation of Niger. Of course, we all knew US troops were assigned to Niger, right?  Yes of course. we knew.

We can add another set of US military deaths to Trump's growing string of US troops killed in situations which seem avoidable. How is it possible the small group of Army Special Forces headed to a local village fell victim to an ISIS attack by 50 or more fighters?  Whatever happened to US INTEL, and command competency?  

Moreover, whatever happened to leadership from the Oval Office when such deaths take place. I personally recall the sad scenes of Barack Obama, and in some cases, his wife Michelle, comforting and offering national condolences to military Gold Star families. Trump has allowed two weeks to pass and seem to only have addressed the deaths when questions at today's Rose Garden visit.

“The traditional way, if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls. A lot of them didn’t make calls,” he said. “I like to call when it’s appropriate when I think I’m able to do it.” 


Of course, we know trump resorted to his common refrain of "Obama didn't do it." 

Within seconds of his initial lie, watch as Trump offers his common backtrack. 

Is it possible the nation is acclimating to a new norm of a US President who's initial thought on all matters is to lie? Often the lie is so weak and feeble, even Trump cannot defend the lie. As you watched the linked video, did you notice Mitch McConnell standing nearby like a horse tied to a post awaiting its owner's next move?


Sunday, October 11, 2015

Benghazi Committee Subterfuge Is Oozing From The House Chambers (Video)

In January 2011, a former South Carolina prosecutor and Republican politician, Trey Gowdy, was sworn in the US Congress. How can it be in Gowdy's third term in the US Congress the ambitious former prosecutor could have allowed himself to be drawn into the inner core of a political party that practices deceit and dirty tricks politics comparable to no other time in US History? 

Embedded image permalink

In 2014, Gowdy was appointed as the chair of the GOP Benghazi Committee. Does the following Open Congress information qualify as competent to chair such a critical congressional committee?

Since he took office in 2011:
1 Sponsored Bills (Ranks 428 of 440) 0 Made Into Law (Ranks 41 of 440)
77 Co-Sponsored Bills (Ranks 392 of 441) 4 Made Into Law (Ranks 69 of 441)
Or, did his background as a prosecutor so enamor GOP leadership, it established the nascent congressman as imminently qualified. Better yet, was there behind the scenes maneuvering with Gowdy showing a willingness to play the "hunt Hillary Game?" 

It seems Gowdy has performed well in working towards sabotaging the nomination aspirations of Hillary Clinton. The linked fact sheet speaks to the level and scope of Gowdy as the good GOP more solid vs. Gowdy as the honest fact seeking Benghazi Committee Chair (as promised).  Reports of incessant leaks from the Committee ay have genesis from Gowdy's leadership. The fact sheet and incessant links actually pale when factored against recent comments from House speaker aspirant Kevin McCarthy and this Democrat video.

There seems to exist a committee investigator who for whatever reason is coming clean on what he reports as "get Hillary" responsibilities that failed and led to termination from his investigators role. The US Army Reserve Major delivered a bombshell admission that adds validity to McCarthy's statements and confirmation what we on the Left have known since the first mention of a Benghazi Select Committee.  

From an October 10 New York Times report:

A former investigator for the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi plans to file a complaint in federal court next month alleging that he was fired unlawfully in part because his superiors opposed his efforts to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic mission in the Libyan city. Instead, they focused primarily on the role of the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, he said.

The former investigator, Bradley F. Podliska, a major in the Air Force Reserve who is on active duty in Germany, also claims that the committee's majority staff retaliated against him for taking leave for several weeks to go on active duty. If true, the retaliation would violate the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, which Major Podliska plans to invoke in his complaint, according to a draft that was made available to The New York Times.

Podliska was also interviewed by CNN's Jake Tapper. In the October 11 interview on State of the Union, Podliska claimed the "partisan investigation" shifted focus to almost exclusively focus on Clinton after it was reported that she utilized a private email server. Podliska told Tapper, "The victims' families are not going to get the truth and that's the most unfortunate thing about this."
Reservist Major hired by Benghazi Committee was fired!
Media Matters has extensively documented that Fox News and the conservative media have been one of the driving forces behind the creation of the House Benghazi Committee, particularly its focus on Clinton.
After McCarthy's remarks, Gowdy has been all too willing to appear on CNN and Fox News to refute McCarthy's revelation.  He like John Boehner has railed about McCarthy statements as the wrong equal to the level of noise and silliness emanating from Donald Trumps GOP 2015 campaign.

Why then has Gowdy refused to go on CNN to address the terminated investigator? 

“Used with permission from the TPM websites, a service of TPM Media LLC.”


Benghazi Committee Chair Declines CNN Interview To Discuss Ex-Staffer's Allegations

Original TPM image replaced by The Pardu

Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, reportedly declined to appear on CNN's "State of the Union" program Sunday to address allegations made by an ex-staffer of the committee. 
The staffer, Bradley Podliska, who was an investigator on the committee for 10 months, told news outlets Saturday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit against the committee for wrongful termination. 
Podliska said that he was terminated, in part, for refusing to focus his investigation on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 
The committee responded to The New York Times' request for comment on Saturday in a letter.
Read more 

It seems nothing good emanates for Americ Republicanism. Gowdy has started a career in the US Congress which seems to have fallen to typical GOP politics. 

How about a bit more perspective from Media Matters David Brock?

This chicanery was years in the making.
Posted by Media Matters for America on Sunday, October 11, 2015

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Benghazi Part Deux (Your GOP)

It appears Kevin McCarthy's admission about the GOP Benghazi Committee is ow showing at the roots.

Within the hour we published a CNN "quick hit" regarding revelations of an investigator fired by the Committee LiberalLand just published a piece which is the perfect followup to our post.


Ex-Staffer Says Benghazi Committee Politically Motivated

A former military staffer with the House panel investigating Benghazi!! says the purpose of the committee is to target Hillary Clinton. Major Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that the committee trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton after the revelation last March…

Benghazi: Did The Committee Fire An Investigator?

Did someone say Benghazi?

CNN (via Media Matters)

After Republican lawmaker boasts that Benghazi

More from "Your GOP"

Another blow to the Benghazi committee.
Posted by Talking Points Memo on Saturday, October 10, 2015

Saturday, November 22, 2014

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi

The GOP released Benghazi report late this past Friday.

Since it is the weekend, I will post a CNN segment related to the recently released GOP study of the Benghazi Consulate attack in 2012.

After two full years of pure bologna from the GOP, the reports shows the Obama Administration performed appropriately. 

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!! A two full year GOP Rebel Yell.

The Conservative Firing Line



Monday, October 13, 2014

EBOLA AND THE GOP. A History Of Budget Cuts And Social Indifference

Republicans Kill

While laying it on Obama!

Do you recall the early days of Aids in America?  SF Gate reminds of a time of conservative bigotry and callousness we are seeing repeated today.

After many years of disparaging remarks about his lack of action in fighting Aids and well after his friend Rock Hudson succumbed to the disease, Reagan again proved the fallacy of GOP leadership. He validated he "was wrong" in a 31 second video spot.

As the GOP continues to throw Reagan's legacy in our faces as the "model" of modern conservatism, I am reminded of the veracity and accuracy of their Reagan worship. He administered one of the most inept, corrupt times in DC and damaging administrations in the 21st Century. 

The Republican Party  continues to reach the minds and cognitive decision making process of millions. Despite overwhelming evidence of GOP inability to effectively lead a nation, they win elections.  

They Kill!

Chart showing cuts to CDC emergency preparedness funding.

Republican Cuts Kill
Published on Oct 12, 2014
‘Republican Cuts Kill,’ which was produced by the Agenda Project Action Fund, mixes disturbing footage of the Ebola outbreak—including images of body bags, hazmat suits, and corpses—with clips of Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Rand Paul, and Republicans in some of the most competitive races around the country demanding more spending cuts. The demand for cuts is juxtaposed against testimony from top CDC and NIH officials detailing how budget cuts substantially hampered their ability to address the crisis.


CNN's former host Soledad O'Brien on Benghazi security cuts. CNN no longer develops and broadcast such cutting interviews. It should is also important to point out O'Brien was one of the first host to lose a contract with the network after Fred Zucker took over network leadership and decidedly move the network far right of center. 

Joe Biden hit Pay Ryan with similar disdain during the 2012 VP debate. Also note the standard GOP drink of water when the going gets tough.


Have you ever heard the phrase "Death Panels?"  Yes you have, haven't you?


Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Brian Sullivan, Morning Joe Show and Contempt For The GOP

Morning Joe Show, MSNBC May 13, 2014                                                                                                                                                               "I don't know who the Republican Party is anymore. I don't know if the Republican Party knows who the Republican -- because it's not a party, unfortunately Republicans, that I can get on board with," he said. "Because I don't like the small-minded attitude, a lot of the far right stuff that comes out -- I should go home now." CNBS's Brian Sullivan. A Republican who abhors his GOP!
While I ceased watching Morning Joe years ago, I have to post a short clip from this morning's show. A clip that is floating around the Internet (where I ran across the clip) and well it should.

Apparently, producers of the conservative show managed to reach conservative viewers this morning with a segment on ......You guessed it, "BENGHAZI."  

The show cast included Nicole Wallace of John McCain/Plain campaign fame, Mark (Mr. Conservative) Halperin, Donny Deutsch, Eugene Robinson, Chuck (I Lean Conservative) Todd, and various other politically mixed guests.  

As Deutsch completed a statement about the true relevance of Benghazi, the predictable happens. Mr. conservative, Halperin, asked a question only a short-sighted  conservative could ask:  "Would you feel same if it were Bush?"  Why would anyone bring-up George W. Bush regarding any matters of state. Halperin invokes Bush, when the world knows Bush ignored much, faked more and was generally a political mess. Desptie Halperin's affinity for the GOP, he should think long an hard for credible "comebacks" vs. silly retort slaps with the equivalence of naked air: "Bush." A quick look at other cases of embassy deaths that garnered no reaction comparable to disparaging innuendo of the White House.

We like this quote from a friend of the TPI:
Know someone with Benghazi Tourettes? Make them name the four Americans killed off the top of their heads. If they can do that, make them name the 241 that died in Beirut, the 104 that died in embassy attacks during Bush's presidency, the 2977 who died on 9/11, and the 4488 who died in the Iraq War. Friend of the TPI Jeremy Huff (May 2014)

For those who prefer graphic comparative illustration: (5 memorable graphics with a humorous facetious touch)

Of course, the nascent resurrection of Benghazi is based in White House staffer Ben Rhodes, recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release of an email. The email, excuse the vernacular, induced a major "...this is all we have" libido reaction from the male dominated GOP. 

The failure to previously release the email was outright stupid, but hardly a national issue. I agree with Deutsch. The general public is not clamoring for another round of Bengahzi hunting from a party that has no viable options regarding issues of national importance. A party that is clearly grabbing for straws as it drowns in its Paleozoic Era 3Ps (paradigm, policy and practice).

CNBC's Brian Sullivan, a major Obama administration hater, disagreed with Deutsch, and proceeded on a poignant rant about his Republican party. His rant is both germane and accurate. Sadly, the Sullivan, the financial guy, fails to realize his party leaders (the Koch brothers, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Fox News et al.) have transformed his party into a seething witches brew of hate, misogyny and social intolerance. Fiscal conservatism is no longer part of the Venn diagram of US conservatism. In fact, the party doesn't even practice fiscal conservatism as a governing deliverable. GOP fiscal conservatism was buried in January 1981 when Ronald Reagan became president with "trickle-down/supply side" economics in his bags of tricks. 

Almost time for the Sullivan rant, but let's take a moment for another MSNBC rant.

Before we get to this morning's MSNBC "lost it" checkout this "lost it " from former MSNBC host Dylan RatiganRatigan was completely phony and obviously profiling for the camera and facilitating his recently released book. What a joke! 

The Sullivan rant was far more effective (shorter, specifically focused, accurate and timely and without book sales as a motive).    Here it is.....

Maybe, if more conservatives spoke openly about their party, sensible conservatives might stand against the devolving state of the GOP.  The party has been hijacked by the social bigots and racist, the party spends as if the US Treasury is a broken slot machine, the party longs for war, and via its actions cares nothing for Americans who are less economical fortunate.  All the while speaking false mantra about fiscal conservatism.

Time for another Parduism.

"Words can be used to mislead, actions are the true measure of the person."

Yet, you flock to your voting place each and every election and cast a vote against social progress.  All the while casting your national well-being and economic security into a basket of Koch plutocracy. 

I would be seriously remiss if I did not end with a word about Mark Halperin. MSNBC's Morning Joe Show offers flagship conservative programming, comment and propagandizing. Yet, the viewer shouldn't be forced to hear and see Fox News like shallow (does not hold water) retort analogies via invocation of George W. Bush. 

Monday, May 12, 2014

Politifacts: BENGHAZI; Liberal Bias Dot Com: 5 Charts !!!

Liberal Bias Dot Com

5 graphs that Tea Party conservatives will LOVE, proving Obama has destroyed everything!

One of five ....and you have to view all five (with associated reading)...classic.

Since, I know you have viewed various meme about the extent of terror attacks on US Embassies from Ronald Reagan to date, I will not re-post the memes, here and now.  

Let's work through a Politifact piece on assertion of 13 such attacks under Dubya.

he Truth-O-Meter Says:

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt.
On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.
"This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."
Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died."
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.
We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch.
While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel.
Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.
Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.
We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.
So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.
What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier.
Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.
Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.
"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.
One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."
Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."
"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.
"We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.
Our ruling
Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.


I seriously do not understated why the DNC, and related campaign oriented organizations do not retort to GOP fixation on Bangahzi with such data. DEMs must remember, when it comes to Republicans, there is no far game and there should be no mercy.

Friday, May 9, 2014

GOP Fundraising Benghazi "Select" Committee And A Politifact Benghazi Check

As we move towards the GOP Fundraising Benghazi "Select" Committee, I think it important to borrow a very relevant piece from The Tampa Bay Times - Politifact page. 

Benghazi was a national and international tragedy.  The American political right and its dedicated media outlet,GOP Fundraising Benghazi "Select" Committee, are reinvigorated by the failures of a White House staffer to release specific email related Administration appearances on the GOP Sunday talk shows mere weeks before the 2012 General Election. 

Benghazi - Never Forget
Never Forget......and do not forget the GOP efforts
to make the tragedy headline news and a current fundraiser!


Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality

Published on Friday, May 9th, 2014 at 11:36 a.m.

House Republicans want another investigation of the attacks in Benghazi, specifically whether the White House is withholding information on the attacks.

By some counts, it’s the eighth investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya in which four Americans died, including the U.S. ambassador.

The vote to create a new select committee succeeded largely on a party-line vote, 232-186.

PolitiFact has been monitoring claims about the attacks since shortly after they occurred. The rhetoric has been highly politicized, focusing on whether the Obama administration downplayed the role of terrorists in the attacks.

What happened at Benghazi

Not up to speed on what happened in Benghazi? Here’s a history: Diplomatic workers staffed a temporary residential outpost in the Libyan city after the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. On a night the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was visiting from the capital in Tripoli, armed Islamic terrorists attacked, setting a toxic diesel-fueled fire that killed the ambassador and a colleague. Americans then drove, chased by attackers, to a nearby annex, where a mortar attack in the morning killed two security contractors. By noon, hasty scrambling by the American and Libyan governments got U.S. workers to safety in Tripoli, along with their four dead comrades.

That "annex" was a compound used by the CIA. So, while we’ve seen unclassified reports from a State Department accountability review board, a Senate committee and some House Republicans, and watched testimony before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House committee — there’s a layer of secrecy that daunts diplomats and lawmakers alike.

Obama’s reaction

Our first check on Benghazi was from a 2012 presidential debate, when Republican nominee Mitt Romney said it took President Barack Obama "14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

Actually, Obama described it in those terms the day after the attack. But in the days that followed, neither he nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently on the subject. There were many suggestions that the attack was part of demonstrations over an American-made video that disparaged Islam. We rated Romney’s statement Half True.

Was there a chance to act that the White House didn’t take?

Other claims we’ve fact-checked focused on what happened the night of the attacks and afterward. Some have suggested that the administration could have acted to prevent the attacks and didn’t, but the claims we looked at were just wrong and didn’t match up with actual events.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."

By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this statement False.

Also last year, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said President Obama should be impeached; one reason he gave was that the White House watched live video of the attacks while it was occurring. "I’m very concerned about Benghazi, in which all of the national news reporting indicated that live video was streaming into the White House," Dewhurst told a reporter.

Actually, there’s no evidence that there was live video. Administration officials have said repeatedly that there wasn’t, and government workers have put a lot of effort into looking for video that may have been captured on the ground in Libya. Other fact-checkers and journalists have debunked this claim as well. PolitiFact Texas rated Dewhurst’s statement Pants on Fire.

Was the ambassador’s body abused?

There also have been assertions that the ambassador’s body was abused as part of the attacks, but evidence doesn’t support that.

A chain email a reader sent us last year bizarrely claimed that Dee Dee Myers, the former press secretary to Bill Clinton, had a cousin in Benghazi on the night of the attacks who said Stevens’ body was "dragged through the streets" and abused. When we asked Myers about it, she said she didn’t have a cousin there and knew nothing about the email. We rated the claim Pants on Fire.

More recently, conservative pundit Laura Ingraham said this on ABC News’ This Week: "The ambassador's body was dragged through the street. Okay? It was beyond heartbreaking and beyond infuriating."

Three government reports and independent press accounts contradict that. Stevens was overcome by smoke from the fire, and Libyans brought him to a hospital where efforts to revive him failed. There are no credible reports of public abuse of his body. We rated her statement False.

Did Rice downplay terrorism?

Last year, Obama said that the facts behind the attacks had been thoroughly investigated by an independent review board, but he exaggerated how wide-ranging the review was.

"Over the last several months, there was a review board headed by two distinguished Americans, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering, who investigated every element of" the Benghazi incident, he said.

We found that the review board did not look at every element of the incident. It looked at most of the security matters involved, but it didn't look at who conducted the attacks or at the administration's public comments in the days following. We rated Obama's statement Mostly False.

Meanwhile, we also found accuracy problems with claims about what Susan Rice -- then the Ambassador to the United Nations, now Obama’s National Security Adviser -- said on the Sunday talk shows in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Rice’s appearances were widely perceived as playing down the role of terrorists in the attacks.

In the more than 19 months since then, we’ve found a couple of claims that tried to gloss over Rice’s words.

Pundit Cokie Roberts on ABC’s This Week said: "When you read the transcript of those Sunday shows, actually Ms. Rice did say a ‘terrorist attack.’ It’s not that she put the whole thing on the video."

Our review of the transcripts from Rice’s appearances showed the opposite. She consistently emphasized the importance of the video, and the only times she brought up the possibility of a terrorist connection was to downplay it. We rated Roberts’ claim Mostly False.

Similarly, back in May 2013, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that when Rice spoke about Benghazi on the shows, she said "that al-Qaida might be involved, or other al-Qaida affiliates might be involved, or non-al-Qaida Libyan extremists, which I think demonstrates that there was no effort to play that down."

It’s true that Rice offered those three scenarios, but Carney is wrong to say she didn’t play them down. Rice said that the extremists didn’t pre-plan the attack, but instead hijacked a demonstration that was already under way. She barely mentioned the potential role of al-Qaida or one of its affiliates, and she urged caution about jumping to conclusions on the one occasion in which she did. We rated Carney’s claim Mostly False.

How did the media cover Benghazi?

We’ve also fact-checked claims about the media and how Benghazi has or hasn’t been portrayed.

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, for example, denied accusing the White House of political motives in its early Benghazi response after Obama said he did. This exchange happened during an interview on Super Bowl Sunday in 2014:

O'Reilly: "Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out." 
Obama: "Bill, think about..." 
O'Reilly: "That's what they believe." 
Obama: "-- and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that." 
O'Reilly: "No, I'm not telling them that."
Actually, O’Reilly consistently told viewers that someone was trying to mislead the American public. He repeatedly compared the situation to the impeachments of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. We rated his denial Mostly False.

Republican strategist Karl Rove, meanwhile, complained there was less coverage of Benghazi than to a scandal about a closed bridge in New Jersey connected to Gov. Chris Christie. The amount of attention paid to Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi "pale in significance," Rove said. We reviewed media coverage of Benghazi and Christie’s bridge problems, looking at it both in number and quality. We concluded the Benghazi coverage was more extensive. We rated Rove’s statement False.

Democrats, meanwhile, have charged that Republicans doctored emails in their efforts to continue attacking the White House on Benghazi.

"Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi. Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real," the Democratic National Committee said in an email to its reporters.

When we asked, Democrats didn’t provide evidence that discrepancies about the emails resulted from anything more than sloppy note-taking, or that journalists had been snookered into believing they had seen the original messages. Their claim about doctoring evidence could use some evidence. We rated the claim Mostly False.

Did Hillary Clinton know that more security was needed?

On the issue of security at the outpost in Benghazi, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul put the blame on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.:

"I think it's pretty important that she accept blame for not providing security," Paul said. "She was asked repeatedly to provide security in Benghazi on several occasions including direct cables, and she says she never read the cables on security. I find that inexcusable and a dereliction of duty."

The State Department was asked repeatedly for additional U.S. security staff in Libya. But we see no evidence that Clinton herself was made aware of those requests. For example, there’s no "direct cable" that automatically appears on the secretary of state’s desk. Instead, all cables would have carried her name, and only those passed up the chain by staff would have reached her. She says they didn’t. Paul’s office didn’t provide evidence linking requests for security directly to Clinton. We found only evidence that requests were made of her department. We rate his statement Mostly False.