This should be a huge story.
Yesterday, I noted that there could be several reasons for President Obama to resist using the word “terrorism” to describe recent events in Libya. One of the possible reasons I suggested was politics.
Today, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler writes,
For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi. (Emphasis mine.)
If true, this means President Obama intentionally misled the American public about the death of four Americans for pure political reasons. This should be a damning indictment of Nixonian proportions.
It also raises a lot of questions, for example: Did he have the Secretary of State lie to congress? — who had the Ambassador to the U.N lie on national television?
… And there are dead Americans!?!
Some Super PAC needs to run a commercial replicating the famous Watergate question: What did the president know, and when did he know it?