Bachmann accuses Obama of “changing the narrative” on Benghazi

WASHINGTON – Michele Bachmann waded back into national politics today after a close re-election last week, accusing President Barack Obama’s administration of giving contradictory statements about the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya where four Americans were killed.

In a lengthy statement issued by her office, Bachmann, who sits on the House Select Permanent Intelligence Committee, stuck to a core set of criticisms against the Obama administration leveled by Republicans. But unlike Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Bachmann did not call out U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whom the two senators accused of intentionally misleading the public in TV appearances as to whether terrorists were behind the attack.

Obama and other administration officials have strongly defended Rice, who’s considered a potential candidate to be the next Secretary of State, arguing that her comments reflected a consensus view of the intelligence community at the time.

Bachmann also accused the White House of embracing a “false narrative” that the attacks were the result of a riot motivated by an anti-Islamic internet video produced in the U.S. rather than an act of terrorism. Obama pushed back against this accusation in a presidential debate with Mitt Romney, noting that he had called the attack an “act of terror” in a White House address that very day.

Bachmann’s comments came after testimony Friday from David Petraeus, the former general and CIA director who resigned abruptly last week due to an affair with his biographer.

Like other Republicans, Bachmann called for a more wide-ranging investigation into “what the President knew and what his actions were.”

Bachmann has kept a low profile and declined interview requests since barely edging out her DFL rival Jim Graves by a little more than 4,000 votes in the heavily Republican 6th District. When approached by MPR News for a comment after today’s hearing for a reaction to Petraeus’s testimony, Bachmann would only say she was “disappointed,” and a spokesman said she was not doing media interviews for now.

  • Margaret Cunanan

    Michele Bachmann = Minnesota Troll

  • linda

    Another example of Mickey (Mouse) Bachmann working to bring both sides together. Shooting off her mouth before all the facts are in. I’ like to know if she supported by vote a reduction in costs of security for our embassies. Bet she won’t expound on that.

  • Carmen Maeder

    Okay so once again Michele goes and makes some comment, which more than likely has no real basis in reality.

    And then in typical Michele Bachmann style she won’t have a explain herself or her actions to the press?

    Um hello, Carmen to Michele!!! I’m someone who wants to know just what in the hell are you talking about? Explain yourself!! I’m paying your wages you jackass.

  • Barb

    thank you, Rep Bachmann — YOU are asking all the questions that Americans have been waiting >2 months to have answered.

  • Emily

    Whatever Barb…you don’t speak for myself.

    #1. If I want factual data I would never consider Michele Bachmann as a source.

    #2. Michele Bachmann is not asking the questions I want to hear answered.

    I want to hear a further explanation of her fly by commentary. Why does Michele make comments and then run away?

    This is what I want to know.

  • Teresa Mihaylov

    She most certainly IS asking questions all thinking Americans want to know! When will the “most transparent” President ever come forth with what did he know, when did he know it and who gave orders to stand down and allow the brutal murder of our Ambassador and 3 very brave Americans over 2 months ago! We demand answers! The paisley press won’t ask them as they did in Watergate-so thank God Congresswoman Bachman has the courage to! Whats the matter with you people? You are as cold and heartless and cowardly as the President apparently-and don’t seem to care about this attack leaving 4 Americans dead. Wiretapping and cover-up was beneath an American President at one time in America..? What about 4 dead Americans and the cover-up of that?! Where is the outrage?!

  • lgerard

    The question i want answered is why did the House Republicans refuse Secretary Clinton’s request for increased funding for the security of our diplomats.

    The real problem here is the outsourcing of security to private companies who do not have the resource to protect our interests. This protection used to be provided by US Marines, we need to return to that policy.

  • Rich

    The Congresswoman must be getting bored with the birth certificate schtick…

    Obviously there’s a huge temptation to turn any incident that could reflect badly on the opposition’s government, such as the killing of an ambassador in a terrorist attack, into some kind of scandal. But this attempt is just absurd. The strategy here has been to shout “Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!” until the public begins to think there’s something fishy going on with Benghazi, and then move on to targeting administration figures because…Benghazi! If this actually works, we are all still in kindergarten.

  • Carolyn Elliott

    Bachmann is absolutely right. The Obama administration changed the narrative on Benghazi.