As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Bill Plante Vs. Jay Carney

This is what used to go on in the White House briefing room all the time. Even during the Clinton administration. Somehow, the climate was far less passive during the last Democratic administration. Bush Рforget it, there was a unabashed lunge for the jugular every day.

The video below is from about ten days ago, when the wheels were just beginning to come off the White House “It Was The Video That Done It” Express.

Veteran CBS reporter Bill Plante wanted to know how it’s possible that the White House does not view the attack on the Benghazi consulate as a coordinated assault.

Notice how testy White House Press Secretary Jay Carney gets. He doesn’t get aggressively challenged very much – nor does his boss, of course. He’s initially condescending to Plante, interrupting him and then lecturing him about doing his “reading” about Libya. Then he gets ahold of himself and reels it back in.

Probably many of you have watched Bill Plante for years.

I can tell you he’s what you’d call in the bizness “a pro.” I’ve worked with Bill since the Clinton administration, and I have no idea what his politics are. He just has a very finely tuned BS detector and a low tolerance for the stuff. And when he decides to tear through the layers of White House obfuscation, he rarely fails uncover some truth for all to see.

He’s also a gentleman and a nice guy without a single air about him – very unusual for TV types. Something about being on the boob tube usually changes people.

Anyway, have a look. This is how journalism is supposed to be practiced.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

33 Responses to Bill Plante Vs. Jay Carney

  1. and still nothing on the NBC (formerly MSNBS) website, at all, about all the lies, that I’ve seen. I was amused by Ed Henry’s reaction at 1:10 and at the end.

    • he could barely keep from laughing out loud, could he. that dude was biting his tongue so he wouldn’t then become the story but it would have been appropriate for someone to laugh out loud at the circus clown.

  2. Carney and every other Obot in the regime knew within 24 hours of the massacre that Benghazi was a preplanned Al Qaeda terrorist attack, yet they all lied and tried to bury the truth. President Kardashian still can’t bring himself to say it was a terrorist attack. Why? Is the re-election of a failed president more important than America’s sovereignty? I hope all of them are brought to justice for their skullduggery once our national nightmare is over.

  3. I’ve seen the new Republican ad showing Obama on The View evading calling the event in Libya a terrorist attack. He doesn’t want to admit that a terrorist attack “happened on his watch”. This is good, especially, showing him discussing it on The View but not with the press. However, it is too subtle and expects the American public to pick up on the theme, “Duh, it WAS a terrorist attack”. The ad should not only put Obama in his place and call it what it is in most forceful words but also point out that, technically, it happened on “American soil”. BTW, a Bloomberg poll shows Romney ahead of Obama in the area of foreign policy.

  4. Not being contrarian for it’s own sake (YOU’RE the journo here) but when you say “This is how journalism is supposed to be practiced.” It’s not how I see it and the exasperation of BP’s last desperate question “but doesn’t that seem likely?” proves it. He’s reduced to pleading w/ JC to admit that water is wet. The new reality is that water is NOT wet if it were to even remotely reflect negatively on the president. (Lower case intended)

    That seems less journalism than if he’d just shouted a recent popular sports phrase, “C’mon man!”

    • The Press Conference has become nothing more than the finger of the current administration’s campaign. Even if the President were to appear, the questions and his replies are not newsworthy.
      Telling the inconvienent truth is something that all administrations try to avoid and sometimes the Press goes along with the lies.

      The truth is there. BobWoodward uncovered the truth in his last two books. Alternate news media uncover the truth for us every day, we only have to look for it. It’s not on the Big Three MSM or in the prominent newspapers and that’s the shame or blame on them.

  5. Benghazi Gate and Bill Plante senses it as a good reporter.
    Nixon lied, no one died, but he left office in disgrace.
    I was amused at the look on Ed Henry’s face.
    Obama should be prosecuted. Will he be?

  6. Poetry in motion. A lesson on how to make the Obama administration look like jackasses in less than 3 minutes! Why is it that these people can’t bring themselves to use the proper terminology – radical Islamic terrorists? Instead, it’s ‘bad actors’, ‘extremists’….anything but the truth. Bin Ladin’s franchises are alive and well…and GM is losing it’s shirt on the Obama Volt!

    • Calling the ‘bad actors’ what they really are, radical Islamic terrorists, would be akin to waving a white flag. It would mean Obama was wrong all along on the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and the so-called Islamicist moderates that are not so moderate. The policy of appeasement in the form of dumping cash and aid on the arab spring really paid off. One ambassador, 2 former seals, and a State Dept.employee paid the price for Obama and Hillary’s failure. Hillary should have had the decency to resign, she is a disgrace. And Obama is in a class by himself. Wish the journos had jumped all over Carney like they did during the Bush years. Obama has neutered the press and they should be ashamed of themselves. I would assume that if Romney wins the media boys (and girls) will suddenly get their balls back.

  7. So ten days after Carney says there is an ongoing “active” investigation, the FBI has yet to arrive at – much less, secure – the “crime scene.”

    Never in all my years have I witnessed such dishonesty in the Executive branch. This tops Watergate by a long shot.

    • I wonder if impeachment proceedings can be started if Obama gets another term. As you stated, this is far more egregious than Watergate. There were warnings issued days before – he didn’t pick up the phone. It’s tantamount to treason. He should be brought before a military tribunal.

    • Anne, it’s actually worsening. Not only has the Benghazi embassy never been physically investigated, other than the report from CNN that they had recovered the ambassador’s diary/notebook after the first four days and now – the Tripoli Embassy has been reduced in size. If the FBI as has been reported ever arrived in Libya, it seems its single purpose was to help in Tripoli only and there never was any intention of sending them to Benghazi.

    • Worse then Watergate? In current vernacular… OMG. If I did not think you serious I would laugh – but this is no laughing matter. There is the fog of war and there is the fog of judgmental, biased, reasoning…

      @Girl1 – By your own definition, I wonder where 911 falls in the spectrum of cluelessness and deceit… Or The hunt for WMD… My goodness… Run for the hills…

  8. Please somebody…. tell me why Romney got absolutely lambasted for saying something early on that was accurate AT THE SAME TIME president knee-jerk said the whole thing was BECAUSE of a video and he gets by with it not only by the media but congress….
    … I know the answer but man is it frustrating…..

      • Just2old, I know about the letter and I should have clarified that but if it were a republican that did this they would have the whole administration in hearings…. My main point was that nobody has done a public wait-a-minute why can Obama jump the gun and come to an absolute conclusion….. and then go back and say we are waiting for all the facts of the investigation…. it seems nobody has said he jumped the gun and was wrong on top of it…..

  9. 9-11 we all know the date and what it means and the events all over the world
    that follow that anniversary every year. Why didn’t ANYONE in the whole
    bunch of brainless idiots surrounding BO ramp up security weeks before?
    Are that that inept or do they care more about the new love me syndrome that’s already cost four American’s their lives.

  10. Jay Carney playing Barney Fife playing the sheriff of the press room as Jon Lovitz.

    Rule No. 1 – Shoot the messenger even if you’re firing blanks. Carney has a future in Hollywood, made easier since Chris Dodd is president of MPAA. Carney has been using the press briefings as a resume. Maybe, even a player on SNL

    “That’s the ticket”

    • That’s Ed Henry from Fox News, formerly CNN. His contract wasn’t renewed by CNN last year, and he’s now Fox’s senior WH correspondent (since summer 2011).

      As you, and others above noticed, he appeared to enjoy watching someone else making Jay Carney squirm for a change. Carney and Obummer both have shown their dislike for Ed Henry since he joined Fox. At a press conference last year, Carney accused Ed of using RNC talking points now that he was working for Fox. Not long after that, Obummer bristled at one of Ed’s questions that referred to Romney’s criticism of BHO. Pathetic President CryBaby snarked that he didn’t realize Ed Henry was the spokesperson for Mitt Romney.

      • Well, Ed obviously has a good sense of humor. Bill is “old school” and was dryly pointing out the utter inconsistency in Carney’s attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion — that even in a country still suffering the upheaval of having thrown off a long-time dictator, no one attends a “demonstration” toting mortars, RPGs and automatic weapons, without having something in mind other than registering a stern protest message!

  11. I just can’t believe there isn’t one news reporter who wants to be the next Bob Woodward and launch his career with some real hardcore investigative journalism. Not someone who is seen as someone from a conservative agency,but someone who maybe works for a traditionally liberal agency. Someone has to out this administration other than Breibart. Someone that libs will finally believe.

  12. Keep it up, Jay. Your trying to defend the indefensible is causing you to lose almost all of your credibility.

    The last straw will be when Obama asks Debbie Wasserman Schlitz to stand in for you.

  13. Nice catch Keith. And, you are quite correct about the date.

    I went back and checked on the CBS site, and this clip was actually posted on September 19th at 3:57 pm.

    According to the CBS description, the actual exchange occurred that same day, Wednesday, September 19, 2012, at the WH press briefing.

    Carney maintains Libya attack was not preplanned

    September 19, 2012 3:57 PM

    CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante on Wednesday challenged press secretary Jay Carney on the White House’s continued insistence that the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not preplanned.

    So, it was one week and a day after the September 11 terror attack.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that an only slightly modified version of that famous Howard Baker query should hold sway here, to wit:

    “What did they know, and when did they know it.”

    The 19th was the very same day that Matthew Olson, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center appeared before a Senate committee and said that it had indeed been a terrorist attack. And Carney obviously knew that.

    Yet, when Plante specifically caught Carney employing a version of the “strawman” defense by musing about incidents in the past where extremists had taken advantage of situations to attack Americans and interests abroad, he interjected this:

    “And they planned to do it, isn’t that right?”

    Carney responded in key part:

    “They might or they might not. All I can tell you is based on the information we had at the time, uh, we have now, we do not yet have, uh, indication that it was pre-planned or premeditated. There is an active investigation. If that active investigation, uh, produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that’s where the investigation has led.
    . . . .”

    No indication? Obviously, Carney was prevaricating. The head of national intelligence was testifying that day that it had been a terrorist attack, and Carney knew that he was testifying! Carney was trying to parse the question of whether it was a preplanned or premeditated terrorist attack, in a desperate attempt to keep the political lid on the issue.

    What Olsen said that same day was that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and, he added the “s” word when he said :

    “What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”
    (my emphasis added)

  14. One other point about Carney’s remarks.

    Again, Carney said, in part:

    “. . .
    All I can tell you is based on the information we had at the time, uh, we have now, we do not yet have, uh, indication that it was pre-planned or premeditated.
    . . . .”

    Yet he had conceded earlier in the exchange with Bill Plant that the attackers were indeed using heavy weapons and firing those weapons on two buildings — ones with human beings inside!

    “We’ve made clear that there were armed assailants, who used heavy weapons. We obviously haven’t disputed that, and …”

    So, how could that possibly not have been a “premeditated” attack? In fact, having conceded that they were using heavy weapons, how could that not have been a premeditated attempt to kill the occupants of the buildings being fired on? Premeditation can take place in a second — in a heart-beat.

    What the hell was Jay Carney talking about?