The Washington Post played a game of “Hide the Benghazi” in its front-page story on Obama nominating Susan Rice to be the new National Security Adviser. The headline beat around the bush: “Obama signals new approach on national security: A Bigger U.S. Role Abroad. In shuffle, Rice replaces Donilon as adviser.”
Reporter Scott Wilson announced “a major shuffle” and “an ideological shift” (let’s guess toward more humanitarian intervention). But you’d have to wait until paragraph twenty-two for the B-word:
But months later, Rice watched as the aftermath of the Libyan intervention upset her career. Republicans accused Rice of being misleading when she presented administration-approved talking points about the deadly attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi last September, derailing her chances of her being nominated as secretary of state.
Notice the Post doesn’t mention that the “administration-approved talking points” were demonstrably false. Wilson seems to be auditioning for State Department spokesman.
The only whisper of conservative or Republican protest came next: “On Wednesday, McCain, one of her most vocal critics, and other Senate Republicans signaled a grudging willingness to work with Rice in her new role.”
In an unsigned editorial, the Post lauded Rice, and only turned to Benghazi at the end, upset that Rice would be denied Hillary's job by Republican irresponsibility:
Ms. Rice might have become secretary of state, had she not been the target of an irresponsible Republican campaign accusing her of dissembling about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. It was refreshing to see one of her critics, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), pledge Wednesday to “make every effort to work with her.” Ms. Rice certainly merits the support of those who wish to see the United States exert leadership and promote its values.
Apparently, the Post thinks American values include shameless lying on TV news shows.