White House aide Dan Pfeiffer made the rounds on the Sunday morning shows today declaring that the details of what happened during and after the Benghazi attacks are irrelevant. Four Americans died in the Benghazi attacks, including the first ambassador in 30 years and yet the White House believes that the details regarding where the president was during the attacks and who deceived the American people in the wake of the attacks are, “irrelevant.”
Pfeiffer first went on Fox News Sunday and told Chris Wallace that the physical location of the president during the Benghazi attacks was an, “irrelevant fact.”
WALLACE: with all due respect, you didn’t answer my question. what did the president do that night?
PFEIFFER: kept up to date with the events as they were happening.
WALLACE: he didn’t talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. he didn’t talk to the secretary of defense, he didn’t talk to chiefs. the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?
PFEIFFER: his national security staff, his national security council.
WALLACE: was he in the situation room?
PFEIFFER: he was kept up to date throughout the day.
WALLACE: do you know know whether he was in the situation room?
PFEIFFER: i don’t know what room he was in that night. that’s a largely irrelevant fact.
WALLACE: well —
PFEIFFER: the premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. the accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. it’s a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Next, Pfieffer told CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer that the identity of the Obama administration official who crafted the deceitful Benghazi talking points is also an, “irrelevant” fact.
“Let’s start with Susan Rice,” said Pfeiffer. “Ambassador Rice went out that day, and represented the administration and spoke to what happened with the best information we had, that everyone in the administration had, is what she looked at. And that was the consensus of the intelligence community. What we do is we want to go out and speak to the problems … And what’s important is that when problems happen is that the president takes responsibility for them and tries to fix them. And that’s what we’re talking about in Benghazi. You’re right, that is an abosulute tragedy what happened. And the question isn’t who edited what talking points. That is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is to make sure that never happens again which is why the president is calling on Congress to pass legislation to beef up embassy security around the world and protect our diplomats.”
Every detail is irrelevant to this White House, because the details of all of these scandals are inconvenient facts that will lead to embarrassment, accountability and potential criminal culpability or worse in the eyes of this White House: reasons to defeat their agenda at the ballot box in 2014.
The reason these details matter about where the President was during the Benghazi attack is because he is the commander in chief and when Americans come under attack we want to know that POTUS isn’t kicking back watching ESPN during a firefight at an under-secured facility in the fifth most dangerous place in the world. The reason details matter is because the families of the fallen deserve to know that our commander in chief is marshaling all available resources to avoid leaving men behind on the field of battle. The reason details matter is because the men and women who place themselves in harm’s way need to have the confidence that our government will do everything in its power to come to their aide and rescue when attacked by the enemy.