Jay Carney Accuses Fox News’ James Rosen of ‘Creating an Exchange for Fox’ on Benghazi


Fox News National Security Correspondent James Rosen put in an appearance at Thursday’s White House Daily Briefing to engage Press Secretary Jay Carney on the topic of Republican Congressional investigations into Benghazi. Carney, who has been increasingly eager to call out what he sees as partisan questioning, accused Rosen of “creating an exchange for Fox,” to which Rosen shot back “what we are engaged in here is for the record, not for Fox.”

Rosen, who was the subject of Justice Department subpoenas in the leak investigation into then-State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, is not a regular at White House briefings, but joined network-mate Ed Henry Thursday in order to question Carney about Benghazi. The nearly ten-minute exchange ended with a persistent Rosen being told “I think we’re done here, James” by Carney as he exited the briefing room.

While Rosen is correct that everything in the White House briefings is “for the record,” Carney’s also correct, in that if the point was simply to get Carney on the record, Ed Henry could as easily have asked the same questions. It’s also true, though, that most TV reporters’ questions are at least partially for the purpose of creating clips for use in news programming, which is why you’ll often hear very similar questions asked five or six times at each briefing. All of these exchanges are “created” for some TV network.

However, Carney’s broader point appears to be that the issue of Congressional investigations into Benghazi has been covered by Fox News in much greater proportion than other outlets, and that Rosen’s line of questioning was tailored to that editorial sensibility, and to that audience.

Here’s the exchange, via C-Span:

Here’s a transcript of the exchange, via email from The White House:

MR. CARNEY: James.

Q Jay, thanks very much. I wanted to ask about a completely different subject. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, as you may know, last week held its ninth hearing on the subject of Benghazi. Seven of them have been classified, as was last week’s, where the witness was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey. I know that you have covered the particular subject matter before in this briefing room, but it has resurfaced in a fresh context as receiving fresh scrutiny from these House Armed Services Committee investigators, and therefore I thought it fair to give you another chance to address it. They accept the White House’s conclusion that no military rescue or response could possibly have been achieved in Benghazi that night because the posturing of U.S. military assets around the world was so poor on that night. And this has led them —

MR. CARNEY: That’s the statement of a House Republican subcommittee chairman, correct?

Q Well, that is their conclusion. And this has led them to refocus their attention on a press release that your office issued on September 10, the day before the attacks. It was very brief, it was four sentences. But it essentially stated that the President on that day, September 10, 2011, had met with key national security principals to assure that as the eve of the 11th anniversary of 9/11 approached, steps were being taken to assure the protection of U.S. personnel and assets. It alluded further to meetings that John Brennan at that time had held.

The House investigators have determined that General Carter Harm, the combatant commander with jurisdiction over Libya, was not consulted as part of those sessions. I wonder if you could tell us more about what those meetings entailed, who the participants were, how closely vetted that — or thoroughly vetted that press release was, and whether the White House might be willing to make available either to congressional investigators and/or to the public the emails, the memos and other sort of paperwork that was associated with the development of that press release.

MR. CARNEY: James, the President of the United States, as did his predecessor, received a briefing from his national security team, principals of that team, on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11 on the actions that were being taken both here in the homeland and around the world in preparation for potential threats.

If your question is, was the preparation for — or was there adequate security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi to protect the Americans there, the answer is categorically no, as the President said after the attack in Benghazi — which is why he said he would make sure that his administration did everything it could to bring those to justice who killed four Americans. And he endorsed the effort undertaken by former Secretary Clinton to set up an independent Accountability Review Board to investigate the situation both before, during, and after the Benghazi attacks, with a particular focus on the question of security. And they found problems with security and made a series of recommendations that Secretary Clinton and her successor, Secretary Kerry, have addressed in full — every single one of them.

So I’m not sure I understand the question focused on a press release, which I think I probably also discussed here, as I think my predecessors of both administrations have done, which is that because of the nature of the anniversary, there are preparations made in anticipation of potential threats, but it is clear — because four Americans died on that day — that there was not adequate security. And that was revealed in the Accountability Review Board. It was revealed in the testimony at 13 congressional hearings that this administration has participated in, with 40 staff briefings and 25,000 pages of documents.

Efforts by that committee that you mention — I believe it’s that committee — to denigrate the credibility of the Accountability Review Board were rejected quite powerfully by the independent inspector general who said that there were no signs of bias in the Accountability Review Board — a board which, by the way, was headed up by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen and one of the most admired diplomats who served Presidents of both parties, Ambassador Pickering.

The President remains committed to ensuring that every step is taken that we can take as an administration and with Congress to enhance the security of our personnel serving overseas, recognizing that by serving their country they of course are in some places and in some cases putting themselves at risk. He is committed to doing everything that we can as a country and a government to bring to justice those who are responsible for the deaths of for Americans. And those are the issues that he believes are most important.

Q Your reply to me focused on the work of the ARB, which, as a statutory issue, does not have jurisdiction over military posture and deployment. And your answer to me also emphasized the question of security at the consulate itself. But the piece of Benghazi over which the House Armed Services Subcommittee that I’m talking about does have jurisdiction is not with respect to the ARB’s work or with respect to the DS facilities onsite at Benghazi. It is with respect to the posturing of the military in a volatile time around the world, which as we now know from retrospect, was so poor as to make rescue and remedy impossible

MR. CARNEY: The core statement is a reflection of an assessment made by Republicans who have, as you know, attempted, unfortunately, to make this a partisan issue.

Q Allow me to finish the question.

MR. CARNEY: And I would simply say when it comes to — and I know that we’re creating an exchange here for FOX, and I’m mindful of that. But allow me to suggest that questions about the posturing of defense forces are usually better addressed at the Pentagon.

Q My question to you, Jay, is — first of all, what we’re engaged in here is not for FOX. It’s for the record. And the fact that the posturing was such that it made remedy or rescue in that situation impossible is not a conclusion solely of the House Armed Services Committee or of Republicans, it’s a self-evident fact. So all I’m trying to ask you is, with respect to these meetings that the President had with key national security principals the day before those attacks, how is it possible that you can maintain that adequate steps were taken, vis-à-vis force posture, by the Commander-in-Chief and his aides, when in fact the posture is now universally acknowledged to have been such that it made remedy or rescue impossible?

MR. CARNEY: Again, James, I think I said very clearly that there was not adequate security to protect those four Americans. And the President has been absolutely clear and forthright about that, as have the numerous investigators who have looked into this, including, of course, the Accountability Review Board.

I think when it comes to how the U.S. military positions its assets, again, that is a question best answered by the Department of Defense and by commanders. But you get no argument here from the suggestion that there was not adequate security there. That is self-evident, as you said. And the administration’s cooperation with investigations here has been exhaustive. It includes, obviously, the full cooperation with the Accountability Review Board, whose credibility has, unfortunately, despite the stature and independence of those who were in charge of it, been questioned by partisans on Capitol Hill.

And I think that this reflects, unfortunately, the kind of partisan gamesmanship that so frustrates the American people when we need to be focused on making sure that adequate security is provided at our diplomatic facilities around the world so that our personnel serving abroad are protected; making sure that the intelligence and resources that we can apply are being applied to bring to justice those who are responsible for the deaths of four Americans; and making sure that we continue to provide the resources necessary to our military, and the rest of our national security apparatus, to allow it to keep us safe. And that’s what this President is committed, to and that’s reflected in everything he does and says about this issue.

Q Will he be willing to make any of those documents associated with that press release available, as you did with the Susan Rice talking points?

MR. CARNEY: James, I think we’re done here.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Filed Under: