(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT: That was President Obama the day after the deadly attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, attacks conducted by terrorists. Four Americans, including our ambassador, were killed. The controversy surrounding failed security and protection and controversy about how the Obama administration spun the details leading up to the attack, controversies pretty much ignored by the media to this day. Why? Rick?
GRENELL: I just have to say that the NEWS WATCH team just nailed it. That clip to me was -- should have been the entire narrative of the Romney campaign.
The president said it's too early to know if this is a terrorist attack. He didn't know or didn't want to admit that this was a terrorist attack. Weeks later, in the leadup before the election, he then changes and tries to say, well, it was a terrorist attack and we called it from that moment. It was 9/11, he didn't call it a terror attack, and he didn't pay the price in the media for that.
SCOTT: But that is the question. Why? Why are the media not terribly interested in the results of that day?
MILLER: Because it was portrayed as a Republican attack on the president at a time we all should have been pulling together because four Americans are dead. It was a successful campaign to politicize something.
GRENELL: By the Obama campaign.
MILLER: And certain media people stuck with it, but very few.
PINKERTON: And I love your use of the passive again. It was portrayed, well, who exactly was that? That would be the mainstream media, the New York Times, the networks, and so on. Yes, they portrayed -- they portrayed Romney as this thug getting in the way of this stuff. And they let President Obama off the hook. And CBS, "60 Minutes," which has been this muckraking TV show, the scourge of corporate polluters and so on, was actually sitting on the video and the transcripts for weeks, letting them dribble out slowly but slowly, slowly, so the impact was lost.
WILLIAMS: Now, from my perspective, I thought that what you had here was a situation where this thing was thoroughly politicized in the midst of a presidential campaign with the goal of defeating the idea that the Obama administration had won, killed Osama bin Laden and was taking credit for it. And two, had any success in terms of its foreign policy in the Middle East.
GRENELL: It was 9/11, Juan.
WILLIAMS: I had that same thought, but there was no evidence.
GRENELL: The president said Al Qaeda had been decimated. And that was his foreign policy credential.
WILLIAMS: OK, that's what was under attack.
GRENELL: On 9/11 there was a terrorist attack, and our U.S. ambassador in Libya was killed. And guess what? The media jumped on Romney and said this is political.
WILLIAMS: It was political.
GRENELL: You are politicizing -- but it came from the Obama campaign first.
WILLIAMS: Most of --
GRENELL: They sent out an email and said this was the problem.
WILLIAMS: -- the attack that took place in Libya followed in the footsteps of what was going on in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, where that video did prompt the attacks.
GRENELL: Mitt Romney said the Obama campaign is not portraying this in the proper light. They are being -- they have a weak response. Guess what? We found out from that clip right there. The president didn't believe it was a terrorist attack on 9/11.
WILLIAMS: I think you are hanging on a word here, terrorists, extremists.
PINKERTON: I think he meant the president said he did not believe it was a terrorist attack. I think the fact is, he knew on 9/11, because they were watching the real time attack happening. And look, Juan, no offense, you are kind of repeating the spin here, saying it was Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Actually, they are kind of separate. Egypt and Tunisia were clearly riots of --
WILLIAMS: Thank you. That's what I just said.
PINKERTON: But you then put it in a sequence within Libya, too.
WILLIAMS: No, they come -- Libya comes after those attacks had occurred.
PINKERTON: But the thing is, they were different sources. And the different genesis. And one was crowd mob action. The other--
PINKERTON: Well, the thing is, to conflate the two makes it seem like all three are the same.
WILLIAMS: No, I didn't say that. What I said was this came afterwards, and it could be that you have people who had extremist goals and are coordinating attacks taking advantage of this moment in the Middle East.
PINKERTON: This is the fallacy -- the fallacy here is post fact ergo propter hoc, after this therefore because of this. The Libya thing was terrorism, as Rick has been saying. Egypt and Tunisia things were--
WILLIAMS: Now we know.
SCOTT: And to continue Jim's Latin run -- (INAUDIBLE) personae in this was Ambassador Susan Rice, who of course went on the morning shows and said
that this was all spawned by the abhorrent video. Then when it all came out that there was a different story behind it, she withdraw her name from consideration to become secretary of state, and then went on NBC to say this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)