Ed Henry Hounds a Defensive Jay Carney on Susan Rice, 'So-Called' Benghazi Talking Points

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney gestures while speaking during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June, 5, 2013. Credit: AP

White House Press Secretary on Wednesday defended the decision to make former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice national security adviser, despite her role in the ongoing Benghazi scandal.

During the daily press briefing, Fox News reporter Ed Henry pressed Carney on the appointment, questioning her foreign policy expertise after she got the "information on Benghazi so wrong 5 days after the attack."

"Ed, I welcome the opportunity to correct the record, especially for some news outlets who persist and misrepresent the facts," Carney replied in a slightly irritated tone. He went on to explain away the "so-called" Benghazi talking points.

"You have seen the so-called talking points; you have seen the testimony of the deputy director of the CIA. You have seen the documents themselves that demonstrate that the central contested point that Ambassador Rice made on those Sunday shows was drafted in the first instance and every instance thereafter by the CIA," he said.

Henry then asked why the talking points were edited so drastically when various intelligence officials have said they knew almost immediately it was an act of terror.

"…if [Rice] is so experienced in these matters, why wouldn’t she see that as they saw it, regardless of what the talking points say?" the reporter pressed.

Carney snapped back: "So, you’re suggesting a senior member of the national security team should actually disagree with the assessments of the intelligence community, provided by the CIA, because somebody appeared on Fox News perhaps said something..."

[fnvideo content_id= 2436665662001]

But Henry didn't back down. He countered the press secretary by pointing out that Gen. David Petraeus previously said the Benghazi talking points had been changed so much that they were no longer worth anything.

Carney argued that Petraeus was mostly referring to the "removal of a point about a warning to the embassy in Cairo, which reinforced, had it been included, the central point that the protests outside of Benghazi or the demonstrations and attacks outside of Benghazi had been inspired by what was happening in Cairo."

"So, that unfortunately doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to propose here," he lectured.

Carney went on to further defend Rice, saying she made it clear that the talking points reflected early assessments, "certain to change as we obtained more facts." He said to suggest otherwise is "irresponsible."

(H/T: Fox Nation)

Featured image via AP

–

[related]