Ed Schultz Parrots Hillary's 'What Difference Does it Make' Shrug

Libtalker and potential MSNBC pyromaniac Ed Schultz starts every hour of his radio show with the same high-minded slogan -- "From the heart of America, the nation's number one liberal voice, where truth and common sense rule."

Well, depends. Turns out that Schultz is curiously indifferent to the truth -- when disclosing it risks embarrassing Democrats. He also broadcasts the show more often than not from MSNBC studios in New York City, which no one aside from New Yorker magazine illustrators considers "the heart of America." (Audio after the jump)

While talking with a caller about "60 Minutes" apologizing for a source's false claims about the Benghazi attack, Schultz said something that bore more than passing resemblance to infamous remarks by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before a Senate panel (audio) --

CALLER: Yeah, I just wanted to go back to the Benghazi thing and I just think it was a huge mess-up. I have a good friend of mine who is, actually guards embassies around the world and according to him, any sign of distress, they have magnetic locks on all the doors that should take at least six hours for anybody to get in and teams with helicopters should be able to get anywhere in the world within four hours. The helicopters come, they land on the roof, they get the ambassador out, the Marine who's guarding the embassy actually stays behind, he gets rid of and incinerates all classified documents and has a specific criteria and order in which they destroy things. So, somewhere down the line there had to have been a huge mistake and huge mess-up.

SCHULTZ: I just, I don't know if we're ever going to get the, the full story on Benghazi and at this point, I don't know what good it's going to do. And I don't mean to be callous about it.

Imagine Schultz's red-faced, spittle-flecked, vein-bulging vitriol if Bush or Cheney said anything remotely similar about 9/11.

Maybe we'll never get the full story on Benghazi, just as we're unlikely to ever learn precisely what happened in Dealey Plaza at midday on Nov. 22, 1963. But JFK was assassinated 50 years ago, at the height of a long-since faded conflict known as the Cold War. The Benghazi onslaught took place little more than a year ago. Pessimism about the prospects of further revelations comes across as wholly unwarranted and more than a little unseemly, especially from someone who works at a cable network that purports to report news.

Schultz's remarks reek of partisan indifference, since the reputations of the two highest-profile Democrats, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, could be marred by further damaging disclosures. In effect he's saying -- don't go there, what's the point? And whenever someone says, don't go there, I become keenly interested in doing the opposite.

Is it unreasonable to assume that if we discover what actually happened that terrible night in Benghazi, we'd be that much closer to identifying those responsible, bringing them to justice (in rough bin Laden fashion or otherwise), and preventing them from murdering again? Surely a person does not have to be a relative, friend or colleague of the fallen to believe this and keenly want for it to happen. Especially anyone boasting of his dedication to "truth" and "common sense."

Jack Coleman
Jack Coleman
Ex-liberal from People's Republic of Massachusetts