This blog has moved.

Please visit our new page here https://www.miamiherald.com/naked-politics/

« Jose Oliva rejects Senate's Miami plan, draws a map that favors Republicans 22-18 | Main | Judge dismisses teacher union's suit against Miami-Dade over property appeals »

Head of pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC targets Marco Rubio over Benghazi debate comments

@PatriciaMazzei

The head of Correct the Record, a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC, blasted Marco Rubio on Friday over the Republican's remarks in a debate this week about Clinton's handling of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

David Brock, one of Clinton's staunchest defenders, penned a "letter" to Rubio accusing the Florida senator of falsely claiming that Clinton, then secretary of state, lied about what happened in the attack at the U.S. embassy.

A fact-checker at the Washington Post concluded there is "little support" for Rubio's claim.

But Brock's attention will likely be welcomed by Team Rubio, which has portrayed its candidate as one feared by Democrats. The Rubio campaign released a web video Friday titled "#ReadyforHillary": 

Here's the letter:

October 30, 2015

 

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio for President

P.O. Box 140420

Miami, FL 33144

 

Dear Senator Rubio,

 

When you launched a false, conspiracy-minded Benghazi attack on Hillary Clinton at this week’s GOP debate, did you even bother to check your own record first? For instance, do you recognize these quotes? 

Although it may never be known with complete certainty, it is possible that the individuals and groups involved in the [Benghazi] attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until that day, meaning that specific tactical warnings would have been highly unlikely. 

[…]

There were intelligence reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa’ida-associated terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks.

[…] 

This slow change in the official assessment [by the intelligence community] affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound. 

They are from the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence report on the Benghazi attacks. If you don’t recall these excerpts, perhaps you missed the session where they reviewed the contents—you do have a tendency to be absent, after all. At the very least, I hope you remember your signature on this report, attesting that you agreed fully with its contents. 

Every report on the tragedy at Benghazi, including your report, has found that the hours immediately following the attack were complicated. Evolving intelligence reports—as well as a claim of responsibly, later retracted, by the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia—led public officials to say no more publicly than was recommended by intelligence experts. 

Hillary Clinton’s public statements not only followed the recommendations of the intelligence community, as the nation’s top diplomat, they were aimed at placing other regional leaders on notice to prevent future attacks, planned or unplanned. You know it, your report confirms it, and your insistence to the contrary at this week’s debate reveals you as nothing more than a naked partisan and a brazen liar. 

In fact, the false charge you are levelling against Hillary Clinton could be similarly lodged at former CIA Director David Petraeus or former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, who both acknowledged the volatility of the intelligence landscape during those first few hours and days after the attack. It’s interesting, but unsurprising, that your fervent dedication to getting to the bottom of the Benghazi tragedy only extends to the actions of the person against whom you are currently running for president. At least Trey Gowdy invited other witnesses to cover his tracks in his quest to politically undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

You may be able to get away with these kinds of falsehoods in the Republican Primary, Senator Rubio. But if this is the kind of laughably false rhetoric you plan to bring to the general election, you may be better off adopting your strategy in the U.S. Senate: just give up.

Sincerely, 

 

David Brock

Correct The Record 

Comments