Friday afternoon MSNBC’s Luke Russert anchored “Now with Alex Wagner” when the news of the altered Libya talking points finally made their way to the left-wing network hours after ABC’s Jonathan Karl first broke the story. After Kelly O’Donnell finished her report, a visibly rattled Russert turned to his panel and said, “Politically, this is not good for the White House. Does it stick?”
BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith was the first to answer, saying, “Sure, they look terrible.” Smith then went on to lay out the rationale behind the coverup without actually using the word coverup:
There have been comparisons to Watergate. They in fact didn’t try to kill people. They did not try to get their staff killed, right? This was them trying to save face after something terrible had happened; and to try to prevent the — what looks to be — accurate perception that they had not been careful enough in Benghazi — that they had been sloppy, they had ignored warnings.
I’m not sure what Smith was getting at with the Watergate reference. That wasn’t clear. But in just a few words, he does succinctly explain the White House’s motives to cover up the fact that this was a terror attack.
A narrative pooping out of the media lately has been, “Why would the White House engage in a cover up?”
Well, that’s why, and the fact that all of this came down less than two months before the presidential election should fill in any other blanks anyone senses.
Let’s also not forget that just a few days prior, in his nominating convention speech, Obama had boldly told America that he had all but decimated al-Qaeda.
The motive for this coverup couldn’t be any clearer.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC