During a Friday broadcast of PBS' "Inside Washington," conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer accused members of the mainstream media of "covering" for the Obama administration over its handling of the Libya fiasco.
"I just want to respond to my liberal pals over here,” Krauthammer said, referring to NPR's Nina Totenberg, PBS' Mark Shields, and Politico's Evan Thomas. "I can’t believe you guys are covering for the administration on the Susan Rice thing when they themselves said five days later it was obviously a terror attack."
"Obviously, everybody could see it. So why for a week did the administration pretend that it was a demonstration?" he asked.
"Well, it wouldn’t be a very good plan if they were pretending and then saying something different later," NPR’s Nina Totenberg responded.
"It’s a good plan because the longer you draw it out, the less that the media and the country will care about it. It’s an issue, you seize of the issue right away, and it’s worked. Who talks about it other than --" Krauthammer started to explain.
"Well, we’re talking about it," PBS Host Gordon Peterson noted, apparently ignoring Krauthammer's earlier point that the media and the White House spent days discussing an obscure YouTube video before mentioning terrorism.
"The third PBS segment of the show. Come on, give me a break,” the conservative commentator responded.
"Now you’re insulting your audience, the people who are still with us," Peterson responded.
"No, these are the nine people in America who really care about stuff. What about all the others?" Krauthammer said.
Do you think Krauthammer is incorrect when he half-jokingly refers to the small number of people who "really care about stuff," or do you think he's on to something when he claims the administration purposely misled Americans because they knew the first version of events would be the thing most people remember?
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter