Liberal columnist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers was apparently shocked that the Obama Administration would be stonewalling the public on what happened in Benghazi in 2012.
Appearing on Special Report w/ Bret Baier on Monday February 3, The Daily Beast columnist seemed perplexed as to “why the administration can't just tell the truth about this.” [See video below.]
Powers continued to express shock at Obama’s lack of transparency surrounding Benghazi especially because “they keep saying things…we know aren’t true.” Powers went on to complain about Obama’s constant criticism of Fox News:
He wants to blame Fox News for everything. It's not Fox News. You have reasonable people thinking that this is not what happened.
Ms. Powers seemed to miss the obvious reason as to why Obama “can’t just tell the truth” about Benghazi. If President Obama were to suddenly come out and admit that he had lied about Benghazi, it would expose his dishonesty and incompetence as well as threaten the credibility of the presidency.
Liberals like Power fail to see the serious repercussions that would arise if President Obama admitted to Bill O’Reilly or to any other member of the media that they lied about Benghazi. Instead, Powers would much rather play dumb and claim that there is this strange mystery behind President Obama’s refusal to directly answer questions surrounding a terrorist attack on an American embassy.
See relevant transcript below.
Special Report with Bret Baier
February 3, 2014
6:39 p.m. Eastern
BRET BAIER: Let's bring in syndicated columnist George Will, Kirsten Powers USA Today columnist, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. George?
GEORGE WILL: Well, the president who talks incessantly, talks increasingly in a kind of rhetorical cotton candy, a flurry of adjectives that nullify the substance as when he said to Bill O'Reilly. If you look at the video of the attack on the compound, you will see that it was not a systematic, well-organized process. Well, if you look at any war, any episode, it doesn't look systematic and well organized, it looks like war and chaos. But as we have seen, we had a memo sent to all of us by James Rosen this afternoon saying if you look at the book written on this, under fire, the authors of that say the attackers knew the layout of the compound, knew where Ambassador Stevens was, knew where the gasoline was stored where they went to burn it down, and used military hand signals to direct their operations. In other words, it looked to them systematic and well organized.
BAIER: Kirsten, a lot of people push back and say to use a phrase, what difference does it make now? What about that thinking and the reporting on this?
KIRSTEN POWERS: Well, I thing the reporting is important. And I don't understand why the administration can't just tell the truth about this, and that they keep saying things, as George just pointed out, we know aren't true. And we know aren't true from sort of unbiased sources. I mean the Senate intelligence report is not Fox News. He wants to blame Fox News for everything. It's not Fox News. You have reasonable people thinking that this is not what happened. I also thought it was interesting that he's talking about, why couldn't he just answer Bill's question? You know, Bill kept asking him, what were you told? And he never really would answer the question, and then he turns around and says, well, we were just focused on getting people safe. Well, of course you were. But weren't you also a little curious if it was a terroristt attack? And so none of this really adds up. It's so frustrating every time we have to hear a rhetorical cotton candy, perfect way to describe it.