FNC's Krauthammer Recounts Evidence of Benghazi 'Coverup' by Obama Admin

Appearing as a guest on Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, right-leaning FNC political analyst Charles Krauthammer recounted that the initial State Department reports on the Benghazi attack identified it as an attack by the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia, and theorized that the Obama administration must have covered up the initial reports of it being a terrorist attack for political reasons during the election campaign.

He also underscored the significance of State Department official Gregory Hicks apparently being demoted after criticizing the administration's story about the attack. Host Bill O'Reilly brought up Hicks:

You know, I'm trying to be fair on this. I'm trying to be fair on this story. I don't want to be perceived as somebody who's trying to get Hillary Clinton or get President Obama, but the thing that really annoyed me was Hicks when he said that he was demoted for pretty much telling the truth. And Hillary Clinton had to sign off on that. That really got me.

Krauthammer emphasized:

That's the heart of the story. That's why the story changed yesterday. This story isn't going to explode. This is a drip, drip, drip. And what the drip, drip, drip is about is this: The administration tried to suppress the truth about what happened in Benghazi and did that consistently and deliberately while the President, at the same time, said publicly that his only objective was to collect the facts and to share them as they received them with the American people. Every piece of evidence that we heard yesterday contradicted that.

He soon added:

I have to speculate because why else would you have the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs write a memo the day after the attack saying it was an attack by Ansar al-Shariah, the al-Qaeda affiliate. So State Department admits it on day two. CIA submits its evidence on day four that it's all about a terror attack. There is no speculation about a video. There was no demonstration. Why else would you create a false story that you announce on the five networks? I mean, there is no plausible reason. The only possible reason is that they were trying to look politically good.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, May 9, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:

BILL O'REILLY: You know, I'm trying to be fair on this. I'm trying to be fair on this story. I don't want to be perceived as somebody who's trying to get Hillary Clinton or get President Obama, but the thing that really annoyed me was Hicks when he said that he was demoted for pretty much telling the truth. And Hillary Clinton had to sign off on that. That really got me. And you say?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FNC POLITICAL ANALYST: That's the heart of the story. That's why the story changed yesterday. This story isn't going to explode. This is a drip, drip, drip. And what the drip, drip, drip is about is this: The administration tried to suppress the truth about what happened in Benghazi and did that consistently and deliberately while the President, at the same time, said publicly that his only objective was to collect the facts and to share them as they received them with the American people. Every piece of evidence that we heard yesterday contradicted that. Now, this is not a hanging offense. It's not a jailing offense. It's not a break-in. It's not a burglary. It is an administration trying to cover up what was not a criminal act. There could have been misjudgements, and there were.

But there was a lot of human error. You can have some sympathy. They might have made the wrong judgement about a rescue or not. You have to balance it left and right. So it was not that great, I mean, a crime. But they decided, in the middle of an election, where the President had proclaimed al-Qaeda is gone and we've conquered this, and the war against terror is over, I'm a big hero, Osama is slain, GM is alive and Osama is dead. In the middle of a campaign where they're pushing this, they decided to maintain that line, they would suppress the truth, they would demote a hero like Hicks, they would shout at him, they would threaten him, they would not allow him to meet with a congressional delegation. All of these things are part of a coverup.

(...)

O'REILLY: They don't want the narrative that the terror warrior Barack Obama had a slip-up in Libya. They didn't want that to be part of the election campaign. That's what it's all about?

KRAUTHAMMER: Look, but that's the great irony of it. It wasn't as if Obama ordered a burglary or a criminal act or had a plumbers unit or had any of this. It was simply to make him -- look, I have to speculate because why else would you have the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs write a memo the day after the attack saying it was an attack by Ansar al-Shariah, the al-Qaeda affiliate. So State Department admits it on day two. CIA submits its evidence on day four that it's all about a terror attack. There is no speculation about a video. There was no demonstration. Why else would you create a false story that you announce on the five networks? I mean, there is no plausible reason. The only possible reason is that they were trying to look politically good.

(...)

KRAUTHAMMER: The story they have put out, Jay Carney has said, this is the administration's story: "We initially assumed or thought the evidence was it was a demonstration about a video, and, as we learned, the new evidence became a terror attack." That is completely false. They knew in the State Department, in CIA, everywhere, as Hicks has said, there was no demonstration, there was no indication of it. They knew it was a terror attack, they subtracted that truth and ended up with a fantasy.

O'REILLY: Right. We just have to find out who did it.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, who did it? It was high people in the White House and high people in State. That we know.