Benghazi-Spin: Myth-Busting and Reality Check - A Second Look

I am republishing this post in response to a request from Freespirit who correctly sees a need for available fact in response to the mythology and spin still being advanced in certain quarters.

Since it was originally published,  a New York Times investigation claims to have found the notorious and offensive anti-Islam video indeed to have been a factor in the Bengjazi unrest of 9/11/12.  As with all media investigations, we should withhold a blind embrace based solely on the conclusions drawn by the authors.   We have seen how it is possible for media investigators, via negligence or intent, to influence outcomes. 

Today, the State Department released a statement designating two of three terrorist organizations as having been actors in the Benghazi attacks.  Some will remember that Victoria Nuland, then State Department spokesperson, hesitated to finger a specific organization in the early days after the Benghazi attacks,  absent hard evidence,  as demonstrated  in the vast exchange of emails among her "building," the White House, and the CIA.    Some were pushing to have Ansar Al-Shari'a named at the time.  The State Department acted out of an abundance of caution then and today designated that organization as an agent.


That much established, here is the original post from May 10, 2013.

Benghazi-Spin: Myth-Busting and Reality Check

May 10, 2013 by still4hill

Myth:  Hillary Clinton said the attack on the Benghazi installation was an outgrowth of a demonstration against an anti-Islamist video on the internet.
Not exactly.  Here are her words on September 12, 2012.

We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

There were demonstrations against such a video at many U.S. embassies world-wide and in the region,  however.  This Wikipedia entry gives a pretty complete treatment.  All of these embassies were under the oversight of the State Department.  The American School in Tunisia was destroyed.  Secretary Clinton, just back from a tour that ended in Vladivostok,  did have her hands full, but she did not blame this attack on the video.

Myth: She blamed the attack on the video at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews AFB on the 14th.  Nope again.  She referred to the demonstrations above, but she did not say they caused the attack. Speaking of Ambassador Chris Stevens she said this.

The President of the Palestinian Authority, who worked closely with Chris when he served in Jerusalem, sent me a letter remembering his energy and integrity, and deploring – and I quote – “an act of ugly terror.” Many others from across the Middle East and North Africa have offered similar sentiments.
This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

Spin: "What difference does it make?"  First of all, those are not her exact words.  Second,  the exasperated remark came in the course of an exchange during Hillary Clinton's testimony at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23.  The focus of that exchange was whether Secretary Clinton had spoken to any individual on the ground in Benghazi on the night of September 11.  Thanks to Tom Kertscher at PolitiFact we have the transcript (there is more at this link.)

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

Read more >>>>

Spin: Nordstrom, understandably distressed,  keeps returning like the Ancient Mariner saying Hillary Clinton refused additional security requested in March 2012.   The body that properly should be called upon to address the reason for the reduction of available security resources is the House Appropriations Committee that cut the diplomatic security budget by hundreds of millions of dollars  two years in a row. (Oh!  Hi there Jason Chaffetz of the teary eyes and choked up throat!)

Spin: Gregory Hicks, demoted for speaking out. Leaving aside for the moment that you chose to speak to a Congress person without a lawyer present as that terrible witch Cheryl Mills pointed out to be State Department protocol, let's look at what you did do.  Left in charge of Embassy Tripoli on September 11 with four special forces in place, contacted by Ambassador Stevens (who had the other six special forces assigned to Embassy Tripoli with him in Benghazi), and told the installation was under attack, you thought it would be a great idea to send the last four special forces in Tripoli 400 miles away.

This,  while embassies across the region and beyond were subject to rather aggressive demonstrations. Let's also leave aside the logistics of getting those forces to Benghazi in time to do anything to help.  There were two things that were unknown.  First,  was the Benghazi attack a distractor and precursor to a bigger attack on Embassy Tripoli (of which you were in charge)?  Second, is there another attack coming in Benghazi?  The second happened to be the case.  But Hicks decided it made the best sense to send the last remaining forces out of Tripoli.

"I'm in charge" echoes from the grave of Alexander Haig aside, I have never seen a less responsible decision.  Hicks was second in command and in charge of Embassy Tripoli that night.  He was responsible for all embassy personnel and all classified material and electronics inside the embassy.  This was his decision - to strip away all special forces on the ground there -yes, in the fog of an attack hundreds of miles away.  We appreciate your service, but, questioning your judgment,  understand why you were assigned a "desk job."

Is this who should be chief of any mission?  Or second in command?  If you have ever been in charge of anything,  you know the answer to this question.  If you are a mom, you know the answer.

It remains up to us, Hillary's loyalists, to keep a record of the truth and to provide it as needed in debates over Hillary's words and actions. We all need to remain attentive and vigilant and to share as necessary to protect our girl from the slander and lies of those who would denigrate her performance.

Hillary!  We've got your back!

Hillary Clinton's Badass Quotes and Some Flashbacks to Days at State

While we Still4Hillers are the first to applaud a vacation for our hard-working Hillary, we are also the ones who miss her so much when she does take one that we occasionally need a Hillary-fix.   I do not usually post articles like this although I did bookmark it as soon as I saw it.  It has occurred to me that folks here might like to have it as well.  It is a pretty good reference in case we ever need these quotes for some reason.  So here is a compendium of great Hillary quotes  thanks to Nico Lang at ThoughtCatalog.com.

This photo is from the swearing-in of Mike Hammer as Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs (<- the video is at this post).   You may remember that Mike appeared at the State Department not long after the resignation of P.J. Crowley as State Spokesperson and was expected to replace P.J.  Ultimately, Victoria Nuland, who had acted as spox after P.J.'s resignation, was named to that post now occupied by Jen Psaki.  Victoria, in turn, has moved up to become Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs. 

Mike was a model of patience through it all, so we applauded his good humor at his installation.  If he would like the role of Robin to Hillary's Batman,  it is his for the asking.  He gave us one of the funniest official moments of 2012,  and we hope he is enjoying his job.  Do go back and see that video if you never have.




Meanwhile, here are the badass Hillary quotes.  You never know when or why you might need them!

33 Badass Hillary Clinton Quotes That Prove Why She Should Be Our First Female President

Aug. 29, 2013

By Nico Lang

During an interview in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, a moderator once asked Hillary Clinton who her favorite designers were. Instead of playing along, she shot the question down entirely: “Would you ask a man that question?” Hillary Clinton is a total BAMF, and these quotes prove why. Whether she’s texting her BFF Michelle Obama or hanging out in an airplane hanger with her sunglasses on, Clinton has out badassed all of us. She shouldn’t just be the next president. Hillary Clinton should be the next Batman.

Read the quotes!  >>>>

Congratulations to Victoria Nuland!

When PJ Crowley stepped aside as State Department spokesperson two years ago, Victoria Nuland assumed that post.  As such,  her words frequently occupied these pages.  Toria, as she is called, was the DOS officer who expressed her department's concerns and advice regarding the talking points issued after the 9/11/12 attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya.  She was also the person who painstakingly informed the press on a daily basis of progress of the ARB investigation and the department's cooperation with Congress and agencies  in the days, weeks, and months following those attacks.

Toria is a career Foreign Service officer.  As such, she has worked under a variety of administrations.  While serving as DOS spokesperson, she demonstrated a singular loyalty to Hillary Clinton, the kind we might expect to see from staff Hillary brought to DOS from the Senate.  Especially toward the end of  Hillary's tenure, when she was ill and working from home, Toria was the guard dog against intrusiveness from the press on personal issues of health.

So it is with a great deal of pleasure that we see Toria receive this nomination today.  She has served well all of her professional life and well deserves ascension to this post. 
Good luck in your confirmation, Toria!  We are pulling for you!

Obama nominates Nuland for assistant secretary of state

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN |

5/23/13 7:36 PM EDT

President Obama on Thursday nominated Victoria Nuland, a State Department official involved in the editing of the administration's talking points on Benghazi, to be the next assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

Nuland, a career foreign service officer who was until recently State's top spokesperson, had long been expected to be nominated the post to replace Philip Gordon, who Obama picked to serve as Middle East coordinator for the National Security Council.

Read more >>>>

Obama picks Victoria Nuland for assistant state secretary, Douglas Lute for NATO

OGNEN TEOFILOVSKI/Reuters - Former U.S. ambassador to NATO Victoria Nuland visits Skopje, Macedonia, in this April 9, 2008 file photo.

By Karen DeYoung, Updated: Thursday, May 23, 2013

President Obama said Thursday that he plans to nominate Victoria Nuland as assistant secretary of state for Europe and retired Gen. Douglas E. Lute as ambassador to NATO.

Nuland, the former State Department spokeswoman, has been accused by Republicans of helping mislead Congress and the public about last year’s attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Read more >>>>

Chris Matthews *Fail* (Again): Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland Know "The Building" Is an Organism

Wednesday night, Chris Matthews had one of his apoplectic fits over Victoria Nuland's terminology in the email at the top of this page.  (I will not subject you to the video.  You can click on the link and forward to the end to see his assertion that "my building leadership" means HRC.)

"My building leadership," he insisted had to mean Hillary Clinton.  Never much of a grammarian,  he would not recognize Toria's careful use of "they are" as opposed to "she is."   Further, though,  his frustration stems from his total disinterest in anything and everything Hillary from the moment she entered the State Department,  a disinterest suddenly shattered when he and his cohorts in the media decided she must be the Dem ticket for 2016. 

Had he been paying attention, he would have known that Victoria is very careful grammatically, that there is jargon spoken at the State Department,  and that Toria, a career Foreign Service officer, speaks it fluently. 
Hillary Clinton had already prepared herself for this language experience the day she first set foot in Foggy Bottom as SOS. 

Now, as you may have heard percolating through the building, you know, when I was first nominated, I realized that there was this living, organic creature known as the building.

It is clear to anyone who has taken the time and pains to follow Hillary Clinton at State that Toria was referring to leadership at a level lower than the secretary who have experience with the kind of wordsmithing that was going on in these emails.  

As a special treat for readers, here is our Hillary on her first encounter with the building.

Arrival at the Department of State

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State, Secretary of State

Remarks to Department Employees at Welcome Event

Washington, DC

January 22, 2009

---

Thank you. Thank you all so much. Well, I am absolutely honored and thrilled beyond words to be here with you as our nation's 67^th Secretary of State. And I believe, with all of my heart, that this is a new era for America. (Applause.)
President Obama set the tone with his inaugural address. And the work of the Obama-Biden Administration is committed to advancing America's national security, furthering America's interests, and respecting and exemplifying America's values around the world. (Applause.) There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. And we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear, as we go forward, that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. And I will do all that I can, working with you, to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America's future. (Applause.) In my testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, I spoke a lot about smart power. Well, at the heart of smart power are smart people, and you are those people. And you are the ones that we will count on and turn to for the advice and counsel, the expertise and experience to make good on the promises of this new Administration. I want to thank Steve for his comments that really summarized the full range of experience and expertise of both the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, and also to send my appreciation to all of the nationals around the world who work in our embassies and work with government officials. This is going to be a challenging time and it will require 21^st century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I'm going to be asking a lot of you. I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can. I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate and the kind of dialogue -- (applause) -- that will make us better. (Applause.) We cannot be our best if we don't demand that from ourselves and each other. I will give you my very best efforts. I will do all that I can, working with our President, to make sure that we deliver on the promises that are at the very core of what this new Administration and this new era represent. So we need to collaborate, and we need to have a sense of openness and candor in this building. And I invite that. Now, not everybody's ideas -- (applause) -- will make it into policy, but we will be better because we have heard from you. I also want to address a word to the USAID family. I will be there tomorrow to greet them and thank them for the work they've done on behalf of development through some very difficult years, because they will be our partners. (Applause.) Now, as Steve candidly said, so far, we're thrilled. (Laughter.) This is not going to be easy. (Laughter.) I don't want anybody to leave this extraordinarily warm reception thinking, oh, good -- (laughter) -- you know, this is going to be great. It's going to be hard. But if it weren't hard, somebody else could do it, besides the professionals of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and our Diplomatic and Development Corps. (Applause.) Now, as you may have heard percolating through the building, you know, when I was first nominated, I realized that there was this living, organic creature known as the building. (Laughter.) And as you probably already know, we are expecting the President and the Vice President to be here in the State Department this afternoon. (Applause.) Among the many conversations that I've had with the President and with the Vice President, over years, but certainly much more astutely and in a concentrated way in the last weeks, we want to send a clear and unequivocal message: This is a team, and you are the members of that team. There isn't anything that I can get done from the seventh floor or the President can get done from the Oval Office, unless we make clear we are all on the American team. We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralyzed and undermined our ability to get things done for America. So the President will be here -- (applause) -- on his second day in office to let all of you know, and all who are serving on our behalf around the world, how seriously committed he is to working with us. So this is going to be a great adventure. We'll have some ups and some downs. We'll face some obstacles along the way. But be of good cheer -- (laughter) -- and be of strong heart, and do not grow weary, as we attempt to do good on behalf of our country and the world. I think this is a time of such potential and possibility. I don't get up in the morning just thinking about the threats and the dangers, as real as they are. I also think about what we can do and who we are and what we represent. So I take this office with a real sense of joy and responsibility, commitment and collaboration. And now, ladies and gentlemen, let's get to work. (Applause.) Thank you and God bless you.

Update on Hillary Clinton's Schedule: Testimony on The Hill and Visiting Dignitaries

During today's press briefing, Victoria Nuland deferred to the Congressional committees to announce the schedules for Secretary Clinton's testimony on Benghazi and offered some insight as to what her testimony will include. In addition, she provided a peek at some of Mme. Secretary's bilaterals this week.  Here is a snip of the transcript.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on when the Secretary might testify? And could you also tell us how her preparation is going, what she’s doing to prepare for that testimony on Capitol Hill?
MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the consultations that we’ve had with the Congress on the timing, I’m going to defer to the two committees to announce the hearings when they’re ready to do so. But we did talk about these happening after both houses come back into session next week. So we will defer to them on any formal announcements.
Secretary is doing what she always does. She is going through all the steps that this Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board. I think you’re aware that – well, first and foremost, as you know, she’s made a commitment that all 29 recommendations will be implemented and that the implementation should be well in train before she finishes here. So I think she’ll want to update the committees on implementation.
As you know, Deputy Secretary Nides is leading an implementation process here in the building. I think he’s having his 11^th meeting with the various stakeholders this week to get that work – as many of the short-term recommendations completed as possible, the medium-term ones well underway, and the longer-term ones well set up. So I think you’ll hear a good accounting from her on all those things when she testifies.
QUESTION: And this is an important week because it’s the week before the inauguration. I think you were mentioning that perhaps we might see some meetings that she would have with foreign visitors. Can you – is there any schedule information that you can share with us at this point about what the Secretary will do this week?
MS. NULAND: I think we did put out some scheduled things over the course of the week.
QUESTION: Yeah, you did, but I mean anything --
MS. NULAND: She’s going to see Ellen Sirleaf Johnson of Liberia tomorrow. She’s also seeing her Colombian counterpart. I think that one is tomorrow as well. As we said, the Somali President will be here on Thursday. We’ve already announced the visit of the new Foreign Minister – Foreign Secretary of Japan – Mr. Kishida will be here on Friday. So it’s a busy diplomatic week.
QUESTION: So these would be more – let’s call them working on the relationship issues in the relationship, as opposed to farewell, right?
MS. NULAND: Oh, all of these are working visits of foreign ministers or heads of state continuing the bilateral and regional work that we do together, yes.

Edited to add:
Apparently Congress was willing to accommodate the State Department by not waiting to be back in session.  CNN’s Jill Dougherty just posted this on Facebook.

Jill Dougherty

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify before the Committee on Wednesday, January 23 to answer questions about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. In the attack, terrorists killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty.

January 22 Date for Hillary Clinton's Testimony on The Hill Remains Unconfirmed

At today's press briefing, Victoria Nuland reported that the date for Mme. Secretary's visit to Capitol Hill has yet to be set.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about Benghazi – excuse me – the Secretary’s testimony? There was a date floated out yesterday by Senator Corker. I think it was January 22^nd, if I’m correct. Has that been confirmed?
MS. NULAND: It is not yet. We are continuing to work with both the House and the Senate. As I said, we can’t do it before that week, obviously, because they are out of session. But we have to – we have not yet closed with the committees on the precise date.
QUESTION: But you could do the House the week earlier? Do you anticipate it would be the same day?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, I mean --
QUESTION: Like how it usually is?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, that she would go up once, she would do the House and the Senate is usually the way we do it. Yeah.

Hillary Clinton Will Testify But The Date Is Not Set Yet

This is an example of why I prefer primary sources when I post here about Secretary Clinton.  Senator Corker was on MSNBC this morning and suggested that if Mme. Secretary can testify on Benghazi on January 22, perhaps as early as that afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the direction of the future chair, Robert Menendez (congratulations, Bob) will confirm current chair, John Kerry as Secretary of State.  Here is how Politico picked it up and reported it.

Hillary Clinton to testify on Benghazi on Jan. 22

By BOBBY CERVANTES | 1/8/13 2:41 PM EST

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will likely testify Jan. 22 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the deadly U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, the panel’s top Republican said Tuesday.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on MSNBC that he has spoken with Clinton’s chief of staff and said she seems “anxious” to testify on the Hill, following weeks of hospital visits after a concussion.
“I think they feel she’s going to be healthy enough to come in that day,” he said. “If that were to occur, and again this is Sen. [Robert] Menendez’s decision, we could move very quickly, maybe even that afternoon, to Sen. [John] Kerry’s [nomination] hearings.

Read more >>>>

By this afternoon it was viral that this date was "set."  Whoa, Nellie!  It was not until after 4:30 this afternoon that that daily press briefing notification went out, but it was another hour or so before the transcript was actually posted.  What Victoria Nuland said is at odds with what Senator Corker said and what Politico reported.

QUESTION: And any updates (inaudible) on the issue about when the Secretary could testify on Benghazi and when the confirmation hearing for Senator Kerry could be held?
MS. NULAND: We’re still working with the Hill on all of those things, but I think we talked in some detail yesterday about the expected timing. They’re not coming back to work – the committees are not – until after the inaugural.
QUESTION: What is the Department’s preferred sequence in those hearings? That the confirmation hearing should precede the Benghazi hearing, or vice versa?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’re going to negotiate that here with you all. We’re working on it with the Hill to make sure that it’s appropriate for their needs and for ours. But as I said, the goal on our side is that we would have the Secretary able to testify, as she’s promised to do while she’s still sitting Secretary, but also have the confirmation hearing as quickly as appropriate after they come back in.
QUESTION: And just for the record, why is it important to the Secretary that her testimony on this matter should unfold while she is sitting Secretary?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think that’s appropriate. That’s what the Hill seems to want, and that allows her to complete her obligations as Secretary while she’s Secretary. Makes sense.
QUESTION: Then this would have to be done rather quickly. In theory, you wouldn’t want to have a confirmed Secretary, next Secretary waiting around until this happens, right?
MS. NULAND: I think we are hopeful that we can work this all through very smoothly with the committees.

So in fact, as late as this afternoon,  nothing has been set - demonstrating why this blog, when it loses the primary source at the State Department will not be resorting to secondary sources unless confirmation can be made.  It is going to be a hard slog, folks.
I am not saying that the January 22 date will not end up being the date of the testimony.  I am only saying that it is irresponsible reporting to say that date is "set." 
All we really know is that Secretary Clinton has ordered all of the ARB recommendations to be implemented, that she is committed to cooperating with the committees, and that she intends to testify as sitting SOS. 

The Return of Hillary Clinton: A Glimpse Behind the Scenes

I posted about Mme. Secretary's return to work earlier today, but I thought some might find this snip from today's press briefing interesting. 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

12:35 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. It is a great day here in the Department. As you saw, Secretary Clinton is back to work. And if you got a chance to look at the pictures we put out, she is in the pink, literally. She’s wearing a brilliant pink jacket today.
Just a little bit of color for you all, we have every Monday the large Department staff meeting where she has her deputies, all of the under secretaries, all of the assistant secretaries, all the special envoys. Riffraff like me get to go. And when she walked in the room, she had a standing ovation from 75 people assembled, and then Deputy Secretary Nides presented her with a gift from all of us in a big box. You probably saw the pictures. And she opened the box, and inside – first of all he said, “As you know, Washington is a contact sport.” And she opened the box, and inside was a football helmet with the State Department seal, lots of good padding, and also a football jersey that said Clinton on the back and on the front it says number 112, which symbolizes the number of countries that she’s visited as Secretary of State.
And she loved it. She thought it was cool. But then, being Hillary Clinton, she wanted to get right to business. So we do what we always do in that meeting, went around the room, and she heard from everybody what they’re working on and what’s coming forward. She did take the opportunity to reiterate to everybody that with regard to the Accountability Review Board recommendations that she wants to have every single one of those recommendations on its way to implementation by the time her successor is sworn in and takes up his duties, and that she’s expecting everybody to work hard in that regard. And then obviously, she was interested in hearing about all of the policies underway, particularly focused, obviously, on President Karzai’s visit later in the week.
So with that, let me go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: You said pictures, but to my knowledge, only one picture has been released. Are there others that have been put out that we haven’t seen or – the one that was released showed her sort of from the back with Deputy Secretary Burns next to her and kind of the table going out. So are there other pictures that you have not released and they plan to or --

MS. NULAND: Just before I came out, I saw three more – maybe they haven’t come through your spam filters there, Arshad – (laughter) – that have – there are three pictures of her receiving this gift, opening the box. There’s a picture of the helmet and a picture of the jersey.
QUESTION: Okay. They’re not out?
MS. NULAND: So if you don’t have those, we will get those to Reuters. I don’t know how we managed to miss you.
QUESTION: I think the --
QUESTION: They’re just out.

MS. NULAND: Are they just out? Okay, all right. Please, Matt, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Are we on the – are we staying on this subject?
MS. NULAND: Let’s --
QUESTION: Well, I want to stay on the subject of the meeting but not necessarily about her return. Was there anything other than Benghazi that was discussed? There was talk to anything of note that was – I mean, she has been gone for a month.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Well, I’m obviously not going to get into all the details of an internal meeting, but she heard from all of her regional assistant secretaries about what the hot issues that they’re working are on in their region. She heard from many of the unders this morning, as she always does in that meeting.
QUESTION: On her schedule, could we just continue on that?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So we know some of the rest of the week. How intense would you say this is compared to what she normally does, and are there any other adds that we should be looking out for? We have Karzai, we have some White House meetings.
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we usually update that schedule during the course of the week as more things come on to the schedule. Today, she’s doing a lot of internal meetings. She was sitting there in this big staff meeting saying, “And I want to see you today, and I want to see you today, and I want to see you today.” So she’s doing a lot of that. There may be other meetings outside the building today. We’ll let you know as it comes forward. But then, now being sure that she’s going to be here, I’m sure the schedule will get more full during the course of the week.
QUESTION: And any Kerry meetings?
MS. NULAND: Meetings with Senator Kerry?
QUESTION: Yeah. In person?
MS. NULAND: She has been talking to him virtually nonstop. She’s had – apparently had sort of daily phone calls, a number of phone calls. He is not in the building today. But as I said last week, she is 100 percent committed to having the smoothest possible transition, to helping him as much as possible, and she’ll be available as much as he needs her.
QUESTION: And then on Benghazi, of course, we all want to know what that might – what the schedule might be on that.
MS. NULAND: Well, let me just say that she will testify. She will testify while she is still sitting Secretary of State. As I mentioned last week, we have a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee; we have the 113^th Congress in now. We also need a confirmation hearing for Senator Kerry. So we’re working now with the committee on scheduling both the Benghazi hearing, the confirmation hearing, getting the sequence agreed with them. But as you probably know, they are now not coming back until right after the inaugural. So it obviously couldn’t be before then. But I don’t yet have dates to announce. You might talk to the committee too, but we’re continuing to work on that.
QUESTION: So that would obviously mean that she will be staying in place, at least for a while, after the inauguration.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the committee is not in session. The Congress is not in session, Senate’s not in session. So obviously a new Secretary can’t take up duties until there has been a confirmation hearing, until there has been a vote, et cetera. So our expectation is that we will be able to sequence this so that she will testify as sitting Secretary. We will also have a confirmation hearing. And all of this, obviously, will be preparatory to a transition.
QUESTION: Just a couple of – some things. How’s she feeling?
MS. NULAND: She looks fantastic. She seems to be terrific.
QUESTION: And is her – is she now back to a regular schedule then? She’s not curtailing her days or anything? She’s planning to work as hard as she always does?
MS. NULAND: I would guess, judging by the way she was this morning, yes.
QUESTION: And then last thing: Is it still the case that she is – well, do you expect her to travel abroad during the remaining of her tenure as Secretary of State, or can you rule that out now?
MS. NULAND: We don’t have any travel scheduled. As you know, under doctor’s advice, she is not supposed to travel for the coming period. And it’s going to be pretty busy here, including, as we discussed, with her testimony.
QUESTION: And just one more. Is she on blood thinners?
MS. NULAND: Jill, I don’t have any more to give you, beyond what we have already put out, which we made --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) were indicating that --
MS. NULAND: I mean, her doctors made clear that they had prescribed them. I’m not going to give you a daily update on her dose, if that’s what you’re looking for.
QUESTION: No. I just wanted to confirm that she is.
MS. NULAND: Nothing has changed from that report, except that she’s obviously here.
QUESTION: This is kind of a variation on Arshad’s question. Is Secretary Clinton fully recovered?
MS. NULAND: Judging by the woman we saw this morning and the workload that she’s got, she seems to be fully recovered. Yes.
QUESTION: This entrance into the room today, where she received a standing ovation and so forth, was that, by any chance, videotaped?
MS. NULAND: No. There was a still photographer who – the State Department’s photographer who put out the photos you saw.
QUESTION: And I know that you have spoken from the podium in recent days, since she fell ill, about how the Department’s belief is that it has been very transparent with regard to updates about Secretary Clinton and her condition at the various junctures. Are there – were there legal requirements attendant at any point along the way here, in so far as she may have been completely incapacitated and somebody else had to become acting Secretary or anything like that?
MS. NULAND: No. We didn’t have to invoke an acting Secretary stipulation. But obviously you saw that her two deputies, Deputy Secretary Burns and Deputy Secretary Nides, picked up a number of activities for her. Deputy Secretary Burns did the trip she was planning to do that second week of December. They both testified on Benghazi after the ARB hearing. But it obviously – there was no moment at which her duties were transferred to them.
QUESTION: So I presume that had she, at any point, been fully incapacitated the proper protocols would have been invoked, correct?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: So she was never fully incapacitated?
MS. NULAND: Again, James, I think we’ve spoken to her health situation all the way along. There was no moment at which it was deemed that she was incapable of performing duties, except that her deputies were asked to take up meetings and trips that she couldn’t do because she was sick in bed.
QUESTION: And just as a final sort of punctuation mark on this, at any point was the State Department legal counsel or the legal advisors consulted with respect to these considerations?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, no.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask if she saw fit to model her gifts. Did she put on the helmet? (Laughter.) Or was the ghost of Michael Dukakis too strong for her to be photographed wearing protective headwear?
MS. NULAND: She is – you’ll see in the photo – she’s holding it up, both the helmet and then later the jersey.
QUESTION: Yeah. But she didn’t put it on?
MS. NULAND: Let me just say, as a fellow chick, her hair looked fabulous this morning. I’m not sure I would have challenged my hair with a helmet either.
QUESTION: Well, if she did, if we can get a photograph of it --
MS. NULAND: Yeah, I’m sure you would love a photo. Even better if it had the Bills on it, right? Yeah. Exactly.
Okay. Please.
QUESTION: And last one. You said she will testify as long as she’s a sitting Secretary. When she --
MS. NULAND: When she testifies she will be the sitting Secretary is my point, that she will testify before he successor takes office was the point.
QUESTION: Oh. But if she’s – if Senator Kerry takes over, she can be asked to testify after that?
MS. NULAND: No. That wasn’t my implication. My implication was that she’s made a commitment to testify. We expect we’ll be able to get that done before her successor takes office.
QUESTION: In open session? Is that part of the commitment?
MS. NULAND: She is prepared to do it in open session, if that’s what the committees would like. Our understanding is that that’s what they would like. But obviously we’re still talking to them.
QUESTION: Sorry. Presumably she’s talked to Senator Kerry about this. This is all right with him, yeah?
MS. NULAND: What do you mean?
QUESTION: Well, that she’s going to stay on a little bit longer, and I don’t know if he’s like really itching to get into – I mean, theoretically, you could have the – his confirmation hearing could be on the 21^st. He could get – then there could be a vote. He could be in as early as the 22^nd. So I’m just asking, she’s talked with him and it’s okay with him if she stays on for a couple days?
MS. NULAND: I think without getting too much into every hour of every day, I think the expectation is that the sequence will work out such that she’ll be able to testify; he’ll be able to have his hearing. And by the time he’s fully off the floor, the testimony will be behind her.
QUESTION: All right. And then just a last one, and I – this is probably better asked of his office or the Senate, but do you know if he is planning to chair the hearing at which she – at least the Foreign Relations Committee hearing? Not his confirmation hearing but her testimony.
QUESTION: Yeah, that’s good work if you can get it.
MS. NULAND: (Laughter.) Is he going to chair his own hearing, is that what you’re asking? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, but is he going to chair the hearing at which she testifies before his committee?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to send you to the SFRC on this --
QUESTION: You don’t know.
MS. NULAND: -- but my understanding is that there are new chairs of the committee for the 113^th Congress. That’s my understanding.
Please.
QUESTION: Can we change topics?
MS. NULAND: Yes.

Hillary Clinton Out Of Hospital And Home

NBC Nightly News is. reporting that our dear Mme. Secretary has been released from the hospital!  We send along wishes and prayers for her continued recovery. 

Hillary Clinton released from hospital

WTHR-TV

updated 19 minutes ago

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left New York hospital Wednesday after being treated for a blood clot near her brain.
She walked out New York Presbyterian Hospital accompanied by her husband, former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea.

Read more >>>>

Here are Victoria Nuland's remarks to the press today.

I know all of you are very interested in the Secretary’s health. Again, we want to thank all of you for your good wishes, for your good thoughts over the holiday period. I just wanted to say at the outset that I don’t have anything new to update you since the statement that we put out from her doctors on December 31^st, where we talked about the fact that a blood clot had been discovered, that she is on blood thinners now and the doctors are monitoring her. We will continue to keep you updated as we have new information to share, as we’ve been doing all the way along. I think that was our eighth statement in some three weeks. So please bear with us, and we will continue to pass on all of your good wishes to her.

Finally, here is the definitive confirmation from Philippe Reines.

Statement

Press Statement

Philippe Reines, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

Washington, DC

January 2, 2013

---

Secretary Clinton was discharged from the hospital this evening. Her medical team advised her that she is making good progress on all fronts, and they are confident she will make a full recovery. She's eager to get back to the office, and we will keep you updated on her schedule as it becomes clearer in the coming days. Both she and her family would like to express their appreciation for the excellent care she received from the doctors, nurses, and staff at New York Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University Medical Center.

I just found this picture and I simply had to add it.  After missing her so much, after all the worrying,  here it is, what we longed for -  that beautiful, bright smile.  Godspeed to a full recovery, lovely lady!

Hillary Clinton Update III

Here is a report from ABC News about Mme. Secretary. It is not really an update, and tells us nothing we did not already know. I share it because of the pretty pictures of Hillary whom we miss more every day while at the same time praying that she follows the doctors' orders obediently. Rest and recover, Mme. Secretary. Take all the time you need.

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

Transcript for Hillary Clinton's Concussion: Doctor Orders Rest

We're going to turn to the health scare for hillary clinton. She suffered a concussion after fainting in her home. On the mend now, she may be out of action for most of her remaining time as secretary of state.
Reena ninan has the details. Reporter: Hillary clinton has earned a new title under the obama administration. Most traveled secretary of state.
But it's one she's now paying for. Clinton is recovering after affects from a mild concussion. This is the second time in eight years clinton has fainted because of a stomach bug.
But in an interview with abc's barbara walters, before the concussion, clinton said that her age and health do not concern her. I'm not only healthy but have incredible stamina and energy. Reporter: According to the state department, the 65-year-old clinton became ill over last week, while suffering from a stomach virus.
She became extremely dehydrated and fainted at home. That's when she sustained the concussion. Now, instead of returning to a diplomatic trip from morocco and the persian gulf, secretary clinton is under doctor's orders to rest at home.

Meanwhile, there are some who doubt the veracity of all of these reports. You can guess which folks I mean.  Here is a snip from today's press briefing wherein Victoria Nuland refutes the remarks of sour-grapes John Bolton who, not on ABC News, accused our girl of faking.

 QUESTION: Sorry. Just kind of hesitate to ask this, but do you care to have – offer any response to your former colleague John Bolton, who suggested that the Secretary is suffering from, quote/unquote, “diplomatic illness,” suggesting that she is not, in fact, under the weather --
QUESTION: And the New York Post.
QUESTION: -- or ill, and that she is faking an illness to – in order not to show up. I don’t – not looking for you to say what you have said in the past, which is that the Secretary is – wants to be open and has said that she will go up in January. What I’m interested in is a reaction specifically to your former colleague, Mr. Bolton’s comment.
MS. NULAND: Completely untrue. We’ve been very clear from the beginning that she had a stomach virus, an ugly stomach virus. She got very dehydrated, she fainted, it was later discovered she had sustained a concussion. On doctor’s orders, she is working at home this week. That’s all we’ve got going on.
QUESTION: This is a guy you used to work with. Can you offer any explanation as to why this man, a former colleague of yours, worked in this building, would say such a thing?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to his personal motivation. I can assure you he’s not privy to any inside information.
QUESTION: Well, there are – I mean, there are several of these type of reports that are making these outrageous charges, so --
MS. NULAND: It’s really unfortunate that in times like this, people make wild speculation based on no information. As I said yesterday, and I’ll say it again today, she’s on the mend, she’s going to be absolutely fine. She is working at home. As you know, she got the ARB report yesterday. She read through it yesterday. She’s been working on the letter that will go with it to the Hill. She’s been on the phone and in email contact with senior staff. She’s been working on other issues, Syria, the DPRK today. So these are people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
QUESTION: Well, how does that – I mean, is she working – is she doing too much work against the advice of her doctors? Because when the doctors put out the statement on, I believe it was Saturday, they said that they urged her not to have any kind of strenuous work. I don’t think they meant physical; I think they meant the – when you have a brain injury of that type of nature, that some sustained rest would be required.
MS. NULAND: Well, her doctors and all the people close to her are trying to encourage her to take the time that she needs to get completely well.
QUESTION: Sorry, what else did you say she was – D.P.R.K., so North Korea – what else?
MS. NULAND: D.P.R.K., working on her letter that covers this report, et cetera, and other issues of interest.
QUESTION: Can you be more specific about what she did on Korea? Was it a phone call? Was it --
MS. NULAND: Well, she’s obviously keeping track of the conversations that we’re having in New York and elsewhere about a response, but I’m not going to get into details; the normal work that she does.
QUESTION: How did the Secretary receive the report? Did she get it in person? Was there a briefing attached to that? And can you describe for us, in general terms, what her reaction was? Satisfied, thought it took too long, didn’t take enough time, whatever? I mean, any sort of general characterization of it?
MS. NULAND: The physical report was couriered to her at the house along with the regular classified pouch that goes to her as appropriate. I’m not going to get into her reaction. I think you’ll get a sense of her reaction and the Department’s reaction when you see the letter that she’s covered the report with and when you hear the testimony of Deputy Secretary Burns and Deputy Secretary Nides. Just to remind that they are standing in for her, so the --
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. NULAND: -- testimony that they give on Thursday will very much reflect her view and how we should go forward from this report and how we should learn its lessons.
QUESTION: Would you consider releasing that letter at the same time it goes up instead of later on? That would help greatly frame that very question today.
MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll certainly convey to folks your interest in that. The current plan is to release it when we release the unclassified so it’s a package, so it’s not sitting out there in isolation from the report itself and --
QUESTION: Would the letter be – would the letter itself contain classified information or would it be --
MS. NULAND: The letter’s unclassified.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay.
QUESTION: Toria --
QUESTION: Where is her current (inaudible)? In New York or in Washington? Where is she actually?
QUESTION: Which couriers (inaudible)? (Laughter.)
MS. NULAND: And how many pillows are there and all that kind of stuff? I haven’t --
QUESTION: When did she receive this? Can you say when she received the report, though?
MS. NULAND: Yesterday morning. Yesterday morning. I think I said that yesterday.
Said.
QUESTION: My question to you is that although it is Mr. John Bolton that made this accusation, and he’s been known to make such accusations in the past, they do gain a certain traction and a lot of noise on a certain network. Are you concerned that they may create a lot more noise than you like?
MS. NULAND: That’s why we’re trying to be absolutely clear what’s going on, why we put out such a full statement on Saturday of exactly what was going on, because people speculate wildly. We understand the culture and we just want to be clear.
QUESTION: Was there reporting that she – the Secretary had to be put onto an IV; correct?
MS. NULAND: I am not going to get into the details beyond saying that she’s on the mend. It’s a very good try.
Can we move on to some foreign policy? Is that possible? Said.
QUESTION: Hold on, wait a second.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: This is foreign policy.
MS. NULAND: Whether she’s had an IV or not is foreign policy?
QUESTION: No, no, the entire Libya investigation is foreign policy.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Anything else here?
QUESTION: Can we --
MS. NULAND: Said.
QUESTION: -- go to Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Hillary Clinton: This is what your brain on rest looks like?

On CNN a few nights ago, reporting that Mme. Secretary had sustained a concussion when she fainted earlier last week, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said that she had been ordered on "brain rest."   Simultaneously almost, the State Department was reporting that it expected the Accountability Review Board (ARB) ordered by the secretary to investigate security prior to and at the time of the attack on the Benghazi consulate in September to complete its work perhaps by today.   Apparently, the ARB has delivered and the report is in Mme. Secretary's possession.  So it appears her "light reading" while recuperating will be a pretty heavy report.  Brain rest, huh!

I thought some might be interested in reading the portion of today's press briefing concerning the report.   It got a little contentious at one point, and I do not know who Justin is or represents, but he sounds like one of those Victoria refers to as "Foxies."  He is nearly rabid in his pursuit of an affirmation that the SOS will appear before the committees at some point soon.  So here is a snip,  but  first a picture of Hillary because we all miss her so much.   Rest and recover,  Mme. Secretary.  Take your time. We want to see you glowing and well once again.

TRANSCRIPT:

 

12:58 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: All right, everybody. Happy Monday. I have nothing at the top, so why don’t we go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Okay, assuming there’s no update on the Secretary’s health, am I correct that everything is the same?
MS. NULAND: Well, other than saying that she is on the mend, we thank all of you for your good wishes, and she’s obviously going to be fine. But as we put out on Saturday, she’s going to be working at home this week.
QUESTION: Okay. Then I just have some logistical questions about the ARB.
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What’s the plan?
MS. NULAND: What’s the plan, how? Would you like to be a little more specific?
QUESTION: Well, when is it going to go up to the Hill? Does – is it – let’s start at the beginning. Is it done? If it is, where is it? Who has seen it? Has it been presented to anybody? When is it going to go to the Hill? When might we expect to see at least the unclassified portion of it?
MS. NULAND: Let me tell you what I can, for the moment. The ARB has completed its work. Its report has gone to the Secretary this morning; she now has it. Our current plan is that we expect that the ARB leads Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mullen will brief the SFRC and the HFAC on Wednesday at their request in closed session. And then the Secretary’s deputies – Deputy Secretary Burns and Deputy Secretary Nides – will brief SFRC and HFAC on Thursday at their request in open session, responding to the report and talking about the path forward.
So that’s our current plan, and obviously, we will give you more as we can.
QUESTION: Okay, well, the most important part about this is when are we going to see it?
MS. NULAND: Is what happens with you all. Well, first of all, my understanding is that the report has both an unclassified and a classified section. The entire report, at the Secretary’s direction, will be made available to the Hill sometime before the classified briefings --
QUESTION: On Wednesday?
MS. NULAND: -- on Wednesday, sometime before they do their testimony in closed session, so that the members will have had a chance to look at it. We will make available to you the open parts of the ARB report as soon thereafter as we can.
QUESTION: So you can expect that on Wednesday?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think it’s probably going to be Wednesday when you see it, but I’m just not in a position to completely confirm all those details at the moment.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Toria, can you expand on why Secretary Clinton can’t testify on Thursday about this? It seems that she has not been available to testify on the Benghazi situation on some very key dates, including the Sunday after 9/11 and now this Thursday.
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, Justin, let me say again, the Secretary had anticipated testifying; she had committed to do so with the two committee chairs. As we put out on Saturday, she is still under the weather. She was diagnosed as having suffered a concussion, and her doctors have urged her to stay home this week. So it’s on that basis that she’s asked for the committees’ understanding, and the two committees have been very understanding to have her two deputies come up this week to testify in open session as they will on Thursday. But it was her intention to be there. If she had not been ill, she would be there. And she’s also committed, including in a letter today to the committee chairmen, that she looks forward to having an ongoing conversation with them herself.
QUESTION: Can you say why – or when rather – she suffered the concussion and why then on last Friday did this podium say that she was expected to testify on Thursday?
MS. NULAND: Well, without getting into all of the back and forth between her and her doctors, you’ll recall that on Thursday I was trying to make clear here that assuming the ARB was finished – and we weren’t sure then exactly when they were going to be finished – that we expected to be able to meet the committees’ requested dates of testifying on Thursday. Patrick then confirmed on Friday that we did expect the ARB to be delivered in time for the Secretary to testify on Friday. But it was on Saturday morning that we concluded that the Secretary needed to follow doctors’ advice and rest this week. So the committees were made aware and we requested to send the two deputies, they accepted that, and as you know, we put out a statement to that effect in literally hours thereafter.
QUESTION: Okay. My last question on this: Does she want to testify on Benghazi, and will she commit to sliding the date so that she can make herself available at a later date?
MS. NULAND: As I said, she was ready to testify, she very much wanted to, she was preparing to, and except for this illness she would have been up there herself. So her deputies will go up on Thursday and she will --
QUESTION: Let me make it clear. My question is: Does she want to do it later?
MS. NULAND: Can I finish mine? Can I finish mine?
QUESTION: You can start.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Absolutely. So she has, including in a letter today to the two committees, made clear that she looks forward to continuing to engage them in January, and she will be open to whatever they consider appropriate in that regard.
QUESTION: Can we move on?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Hold on.
MS. NULAND: Anything else?
QUESTION: No. What was the purpose of the letter today? What was --
MS. NULAND: Just to say thank you for your understanding, I wish I could have been there myself, my deputies will make this date that we had together on Thursday, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on these very important issues.
QUESTION: Okay. Does she say in the letter that Nides and Burns’s testimony doesn’t preclude her from going up? Or is that just understood?
MS. NULAND: I mean, I don’t she gets into that kind of – it’s understood that she remains open thereafter to continuing to work with the committees.
Okay?
QUESTION: You said in January. To be clear, she’s saying she could testify in January if they want?
MS. NULAND: I don’t – let’s see – yeah, I guess, I mean, this is probably the last week that the committees are going to be working as well. They’re probably not going to work in the Christmas week.
QUESTION: Right. But she set a month to say – she said the following month I could be available to do this, is what you’re saying?
MS. NULAND: She’s making clear in her communication with the committee that she expects that they’re going to have to have ongoing conversation in January, and she’s available for that. Okay?

Hillary Clinton, those emails, and the truth

In the dust up around the leaked emails and among the events of her busy day, Hillary Clinton made the following remarks regarding the emails and the attack on the Benghazi consulate in a press availability today.

Now finally, on Benghazi, look, I’ve said it and I’ll say it one more time. No one wants to find out what happened more than I do. We are holding ourselves accountable to the American people, because not only they, but our brave diplomats and development experts serving in dangerous places around the world, deserve no less. The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything – not cherry-picking one story here or one document there – but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this.
Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be. What I keep in mind is that four brave Americans were killed, and we will find out what happened, we will take whatever measures are necessary to fix anything that needs to be fixed, and we will bring those to justice who committed these murders. And I think that that is what we have said, that is what we are doing, and I’m very confident that we will achieve those goals.

This was in partial response to a complex series of questions from CNN's Elise Labott.

Later in the day, at the daily press briefing,  AP's Matthew Lee further pursued the story of the emails.  In response, Victoria Nuland shed a great deal of light on the nature of those emails.  What kind of emails they were and from where provides perspective on their significance and much needed context. Here is the exchange.

TRANSCRIPT:

MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Wednesday, everyone. The Secretary did all they work this morning, so we can handle this with dispatch, I hope. I have nothing at the top.

QUESTION: She did all of the work this morning?
MS. NULAND: She did a lot of the work, yeah.
QUESTION: Well, let’s just start with something that she did say, which was about these emails that have been – that are being reported on now. Do you have anything to add to what she said about them? And can you explain – these were emails sent by this building to various other agencies, including the White House. Do you know, was it people in this building who noticed the claim of responsibility on Facebook and Twitter, or was it people in Tripoli or somewhere else?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, in terms of where this piece fits into the general effort to gather information before, during, and after the events in Benghazi, I think the Secretary’s spoken to that, Jay Carney’s spoken to that. The reason you have an ARB is so that you can look at all of the information that we had, not only unclassified information and information --
QUESTION: Fair enough, but I --
MS. NULAND: -- that appeared on Facebook.
QUESTION: But considering these things are now out there, can you --
MS. NULAND: So just to give some context, as you know, our Operations Center is responsible for providing fast-breaking news to principals in this Department. We obviously share with other national security agencies. So on the unclassified side, they will collect information that they are seeing in real time, whether it’s from Facebook, Twitter, press reporting, all of your fine work, that kind of thing, and make sure that people see it if it’s a breaking story. So what --
QUESTION: Sorry. So it was the Ops Center specifically that noticed this claim of responsibility?
MS. NULAND: I think the --
QUESTION: Or was it the Crisis – the Rapid Response Team or – I’m just looking for – or was it someone out in the field?
MS. NULAND: That particular piece was disseminated --
QUESTION: I know where it was disseminated from.
MS. NULAND: -- by our Operations Center. Whether it was --
QUESTION: Where did they get it from?
MS. NULAND: Whether they saw it themselves or whether it was highlighted by our people in the field, I can’t speak to that. I, frankly, don’t know. It can happen any of a number of ways.
QUESTION: In instances such as this, is it standard practice to relay all claims of responsibility sort of no matter --
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: -- where they come from, who they might be?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: So I mean, it could be somebody waving a flag in the air and saying, “I’m responsible,” and that would also be reported?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: So there’s no sort of value judgment on the reliability of the claim implied by having it relayed through this system that you have?
MS. NULAND: And in fact, there are instances where the Ops Center might send out messages that three different groups are claiming responsibility for the same event. But it’s standard practice for them, when we have breaking news, for them to inform all of the principals in this building so that everybody knows what’s moving.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough. But I mean, if a claim is ludicrously unbelievable – I don’t know, I mean, like if someone forged the Quaker Church or something and said that they were – that would be passed on as well?
MS. NULAND: Well, they obviously use their judgment as to whether they think it’s important for principals in this building to be aware of what’s out there, particularly what’s out there in the public domain.
QUESTION: Okay. So it was deemed important enough – and I’m going to assume that important enough means that it was presumably credible to pass on to other – to pass on to the principals in other agencies, correct?
MS. NULAND: Again --
QUESTION: I’m just – I mean, if I had said that I take responsibility for this, would that have gone up the chain?
MS. NULAND: They definitely would not have passed on your personal claim of responsibility, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. All right. Fine. So – because it wouldn’t have been credible. Now maybe – I mean, it wouldn’t – what I’m getting at is that if it wasn’t a claim that had the possibility of credibility, it wouldn’t have been passed on, correct?
MS. NULAND: What I’d like to say here is that in keeping folks informed, the Ops Center obviously is looking at the totality of what’s out there in the public domain. When things begin to become picked up, when they become something that people are talking about, they obviously have a responsibility to inform principals. But it is not the job of the Operations Center in passing these things on to analyze them, to weight them in any way, shape, or form. They’re just --
QUESTION: Well, but in fact, they are weighting – had there been a hundred claims of responsibility that night and 99 of them had been from a group or a person that couldn’t possibly have done it, they wouldn’t have passed those on, correct?
MS. NULAND: In all likelihood, if there had been a hundred claims of responsibility that night, they would have done a summary which said more than a hundred groups, including Matt Lee, have claimed responsibility for this attack, is what they would have reported.
QUESTION: And then said that --
MS. NULAND: And not evaluated them one way or the other.
QUESTION: Really? So they would have given my alleged claim of responsibility equal weight with that of a known terrorist group in Libya?
MS. NULAND: Again, Matt, you’re – we’re getting into crazy land here. My point is simply that if the environment is saturated with claims of responsibility, they’re going to make sure that principals know that we’ve got competing claims. That’s my only point here.
QUESTION: And again, just while we’re on this sort of procedure, while we’re in crazy land – (laughter) – what’s the --
QUESTION: Who’s the ambassador here?
QUESTION: Exactly. That’s what I was wondering. (Laughter.)
The objective – I realize that they go to all the principals, but is it then that the analysis comes from the intel community?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: And so they’re really the ones who are charged with assessing the reliability or the plausibility of any of these claims in that case? But the principals are kept informed just so that they know what’s out there, or what --
MS. NULAND: For example – let me just give you an example. My BlackBerry, on any given day, will have between 6 and 60 alerts from the Ops Center about what you all are writing, about what other things are moving in the press from around the world, about unclassified information that we’re receiving from our embassies, about things of interest that might be moving in the public domain around the world. These are to keep people informed of what’s out there in public. They are not designed to be intelligence products. They’re not designed to be finished analysis. They are simply to keep folks informed, particularly on the unclassified side.
Please.
QUESTION: One more on this. And I don’t know if this is in crazy land or not, but do you – it’s on they specifics of this email in question. Do you have any reason to believe that it could actually have just been wrong, that there was not a Facebook posting at all, or --
MS. NULAND: Again --
QUESTION: Does that happen? I mean --
MS. NULAND: Does it – I mean, it --
QUESTION: That occasionally these emails come around when there’s a developing situation and they’re not accurate?
MS. NULAND: Again, these are designed to keep people informed of what’s moving. I didn’t actually look at it to see whether it was a press report about a Facebook posting or whether it was the Operations Center itself saying that there was a Facebook posting, so I can’t evaluate one way or the other. But --
QUESTION: It was the Embassy in Tripoli.
MS. NULAND: Is that – was that what it says? Anyway, I’d have to look at it. But again, they report what they get. So if they reported Embassy in Tripoli says, then it is based on something that Embassy in Tripoli said. Whether that can be right or that can be wrong is something to be evaluated later.
QUESTION: Why didn’t you have the tape?
MS. NULAND: Again, back to the sort of overall question of what was happening that night, who is responsible, what do we learn from it, all of these things are being looked at by the Accountability Review Board. They are not simply looking at classified, they are looking at unclassified as well. So as the Secretary said today, this piece has to be put into the larger mosaic.
QUESTION: That’s actually my second question. Are you concerned at this point that the integrity of this ARB investigation is being slaughtered by a climate of all these leaks of emails and – it seems like every couple of days, there’s potentially classified or unclassified, recently unclassified information that’s getting leaked to the media. Is that jeopardizing the integrity of this ARB?
MS. NULAND: Well with due respect to the Fourth Estate and all of you, the ARB’s job is to sit back away from the press swirl, the public swirl, the political swirl, and try to look at what actually happened before, during, and after; what we knew, when we knew it, and what lessons we can draw from it. So they are responsible for standing back from all of this news environment, et cetera.
QUESTION: So you don’t think that people are pushing these things out to smear the – for political reasons? That’s what I’m asking.
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously I’m not --
QUESTION: I’m trying to ask it in a way that doesn’t immediately get into politics, because I know you don’t like to talk about politics.
MS. NULAND: I sure don’t like to talk about politics, and I’m not going to get into the motivations of various folks here. But you can think about the way the ARB operates much as you think about a sequestered jury, if you will. They are separated from the larger process and they look at everything that we knew at the time and during and after, and they are – their process is designed to have integrity in and of itself without reference to the current climate now.

So! While everyone is bouncing off the walls, pointing fingers, and playing the blame game, the truth about the emails is that they were a product of a quotidian process to alert officials of stories that are circulating with no evaluation made at that point regarding the validity of the story.  The story itself goes out as is unvalidated. 

Now if everyone would just settle down and let the ARB do its work we might actually get to the truth of the matter.