Yesterday on Fox News Sunday Brit Hume gives some straight talk to a heavily Botoxed and curled-lip former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) after she said Benghazi was an “intelligence failure” and not a conspiracy to divert attention from the terrorist attacks weeks before the 2012 presidential election. Harman followed a tactical scrip familiar to all lawyers – if you’re losing the case on the facts pound the table with a restatement of the issue that obscures the damaging facts and allows you to state other facts that are more favorable to your argument.
Hume does not let her get away with that: “That’s not the question. The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its UN ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used. I’m not talking about the CIA talking points, I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day, which were monumentally misleading, that since have been shown to be false, and based on no intelligence that we know of.”
Harman admits the Obama talking points were false, as she must, but then tries to wiggle out by claiming, “Yes, it was false but not intentionally so.”
Doesn’t the phrase “talking points” itself indicate an intention to lie? I once owned a Harman Kardon receiver. I don’t know what ever happened to it, but I’m glad it’s gone.