Charles Krauthammer took the administration to task over Benghazi on Special Report tonight:
When you say there’s no evidence, you’re telling a falsehood. If you had just said the weight of the evidence, or we think “x”, and that’s the video, that’s one thing. But when you say there’s no evidence that it was a premeditated attack and you have all the evidence saying that we see in the emails, in the fact that the station chief said it on the day of the attack. You have all this evidence, that’s simply not so. Then you get the president saying on the Daily Show last week, “that we were releasing evidence continually as it came out.” That’s also not true. These emails were not released by the State Department. It came from other sources. I mean, their story is piling one untruth on top of another. The fact that was it was an incompetent coverup is not argument that of it not being a coverup. A lot of things in life are incompetent. That’s not evidence that it wasn’t. And the theory I have is that they might have thought at the beginning it would be a terror attack and go out with it. But remember what happened between the attack and the Susan Rice appearance — three days of unrelenting media coverage of Romney: The Romney statement, the attacks on Romney, the gaffe he made and all of that. The media were uninterested in the story. They might have made a calculation. The media is interested in the Romney stuff and not interested in the detail. We ride it out until election day. The secretary of state said in the statement that we saw is, “you know, let’s not rush any judgment, because we’re going to get the report of the committee.” You know what her committee will report? In the middle of next month — that means after election day. All they want to do from the beginning is string it out to election day and why not run with a story that it’s all about an American nut who released a video and not about the administration for admitting that al-Qaeda is not on its heels but al-Qaeda is active.