Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Chris Matthews: 'Ridiculous' to think Obama responsible for security in Benghazi

MSNBC's Chris Matthews says it's "ridiculous" to think Obama was responsible for security in Benghazi.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews says it's "ridiculous" to think Obama was responsible for security in Benghazi.
AFP/Getty Images

On Thursday's edition of "Hardball," MSNBC host Chris Matthews said it's "ridiculous" to believe that the Obama administration is responsible for security -- or lack of it -- in the Benghazi terror attack of Sept. 11, 2012, Newsbusters reported. According to Matthews, Ambassador Chris Stevens is apparently responsible for his own death.

"But the idea that somebody else should have been covering for him [Ambassador Chris Stevens], that someone else should have the army there waiting to defend him, I think it's a little ridiculous," he said. "How would the President even know he [Stevens] was going on that trip out there to Benghazi?"

Former RNC boss Michael Steele, a guest on the program, expressed incredulity at Matthews' suggestion.

"If the President doesn't know, at least his Secretary of State and her department should know what his [Stevens'] needs are on the ground and what is required to protect the United States ambassador in a place like Benghazi," he said in response. As we reported in October 2012, the administration knew of security problems in the region but refused multiple requests for additional security.

This, however, was apparently lost on Matthews, who suggested Ambassador Stevens was a "grown-up" who chose to make the "risky" trip to Benghazi. Moreover, he asserted that attacks happen all over the world and implied that the Benghazi attack was no different.

"We live in a world of unpredictability and horror. And the idea that one of these incidents would be blown up as the most important issue of the upcoming presidential elections for kingdom come to me is out of proportion," he added.

At issue, however, is not just the attack, but the lack of response and the ensuing cover-up. For days, the administration claimed the attack was the result of an obscure online video and emails indicate the administration coached then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to falsely claim the attack was the result of that video.

One of the 41 documents obtained by Judicial Watch, for example, contained this bullet point: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

But as we reported in October 2012, the administration knew full well the attack was conducted by an Islamic terror group, and had no connection to the YouTube video. Documents declassified in January of this year also indicate the administration knew at the time the video played no role in the attack. Additionally, those documents revealed Obama was briefed on the situation shortly after the attack began.

But liberal Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media continue to prop up the president, claiming the scandal doesn't really exist. Some, like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., actually blamed Republicans for the attack even though the administration refused to provide any support.

Now, Matthews claims the administration isn't responsible for ensuring the safety of ambassadors overseas. No doubt he would be singing a different tune if Obama was a Republican.

Report this ad