Accuracy in Media

During an appearance on The Today Show on Monday, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, defended the administration’s response to last month’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, calling the investigation a “very transparent process:”

 

The President has been clear it was a terrible tragedy that took place in Benghazi, we lost four American lives. He initiated an investigation to get to the bottom of it, of what happened and how we can keep our embassies safe all over the country. Every step of the way, information is learned, as intelligence is approved, of what happened on the ground that night, the President makes it available to members of Congress and the public. It’s been a very transparent process and he’s determined to bring whoever perpetrated this against our four Americans to justice.

That may be how Cutter sees it or is trying to spin it, but it isn’t how most Americans view the process.

Even the liberal media , which are very supportive of the President, are struggling with the lack of clear answers from the administration.

On Chris Matthews’ program on Sunday, Andrea Mitchell said that it was clear from State Department briefings that as the attack was taking place, there was an open line between Washington and Tripoli in the operations center and that the intelligence community knew, Washington knew, everyone knew that there had been no protest.

And yet the administration sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on television to say it was the result of a protest about an anti-Islam video.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also backed the protest line, such as when he was questioned by ABC’s Jake Tapper two weeks ago.

I guess for Cutter it all depends on what her definition of transparent is.




Comments