The Washington Post front-page story Wednesday on Susan Rice's fiasco of a meeting with three GOP senators carried this ridiculous sentence: "Rice came face to face with some of her harshest Republican critics, hoping to allay their concerns about whether she misled Americans regarding what precipitated the assault."
"About whether she misled?" Which sloppy copy editor would let this pass, as if there were any doubt Rice was spreading falsehoods all over television on 9-16? In paragraph eight, the Post surrenders to reality (sort of):
She said repeatedly that a spontaneous demonstration led to the violence, a claim later debunked by intellligence officials and reports from the ground.
Even that is not entirely accurate, since ABC News posted the e-mails sent by the State Department in real time describing a terrorist attack (and not a protest march). It was not "later debunked," at least not for Rice. It was a claim at odds with what the administration was told, from Libya, in real time.
But O'Keefe also published some ridiculous sentences from Democrats yesterday. White House spin artist Jay Carney rejected reality entirely in claiming "I would simply say there are no unanswered questions about Rice's appearances" on TV, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Rice's tenure as ambassador "impeccable."
The notion that Republican Senators are disturbed they still don't have basic facts about Benghazi is not merely an indictment of Team Obama, but an indictment of an incurious news media.