Gutfeld: What kind of story merits examination?

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," May 7, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: So, as three key witnesses are about to testify regarding the attack in our consulate in Benghazi, one question remains -- who the hell cares? I mean, really? It happened such a long time ago and what difference does it make? Which leads me to another question: what kind of story merits examination?

The thing is Benghazi isn't complex, it's very simple. People needed help on 9/11. They were denied. Four people died. The government falsely blamed a video.

You can't get any easier than that. That's scandal 101, even Howie Kurtz could follow it and he's an idiot. Especially compared with other massive scandals -- Watergate people lied, no one died. Benghazi, the president chilled after people were killed.

Wouldn't that merit hard hitting reporting on par with Watergate? Maybe if it were Republicans involved, not Obama.

Since the media gatekeepers have so much invested in the president, his incompetence reflects their poor choices. They are the parents in the grandstand blaming the ump for their son's ineptitude. They are the pals covering for their buddy when he's out with another girl. They're the guy who holds on to your drugs.

Which is why when Obama's first impulse was to falsely push a video, no one really cared. And so, tomorrow, you can ask all the questions you want, but if the media decides it's not as interesting as Valerie Plame, those questions are irrelevant.

Maybe the administration will be held accountable. The media? Never. Their only punishment is they have to live with themselves which might be punishment enough.

So, Kimberly, I want to go to you first. Predictions for tomorrow? How do you think this thing is going to go?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: I hope people pay attention to it. I think it's going to be significant because the reports that we're getting -- at least preliminary reports to show that there is a quite a bit of information that they were not forthcoming with, that there was very, very significant editing of the talking points. That is what we have seen so far.

So, there is going to have to be some questions answered and who is going to ultimately take the fall for this to take responsibility. You know, Hillary Clinton is no longer in that position but with high aspirations for 2016, that I think is going to be most -- the biggest fallout from this.

GUTFELD: Ironically, Bob, Obama might not only prevented from Hillary from becoming president in 2008, but also 2016.

GUILFOYLE: Interesting.

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: Yes, good point.

But if I could ask us all to take a breath here and step back, you've got three people to testify tomorrow. They're going to be asked a lot of questions.

My question is his motive in doing this? Is it just purely for doing it out of his own because he thought it was the wrong thing to do? So, why wasn't it done earlier? Before we start throwing accusations about the president of United States, we ought to hear the facts.

GUTFELD: Although, Bob, if the situation was reversed, and this was the McCain administration, and it was Senator Obama involved in the questioning, you would be pretty stoked.

BECKEL: Yes, but I'm a partisan.

GUTFELD: Yes, that's true. That's what I love about you.

Eric, what do you see happening? Is administration's story is falling apart? Can they just tell the truth?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Just two quick points, because I want to save this for tomorrow, and then unload after we hear some of the hearings. Obama slipped through the terror attack on Benghazi. He slept through the 3:00 a.m. wake-up call, the call, the proverbial call.

He flew to Vegas on Fundraiser One, delivered his thing. And then the campaign told him, don't worry. What happens in Benghazi stays in Benghazi and it didn't because tomorrow, we will find out what happened.

GUILFOYLE: That sounds like Ambien.

BOLLING: But isn't it interesting -- yes, no, what happens in -- no, Benghazi. Isn't it interesting, though, seven months or eight months ago that was a long time ago. For the last five years, it's been Bush's fault. But that wasn't too much of a long time, but eight months is too long ago.

GUTFELD: Dana, do you think anybody will ask who pushed the video this time?

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: You said, I wrote down in your monologue, you said there's only one question.


PERINO: You said, I don't remember what that was.


PERINO: OK, who pushed the video? That really gets the heart of it. One point about -- you're going to hear a lot about the editing the talking points. They didn't edit talking points. They edited the facts of the intel community's assessment in order to make talking points for themselves and for Susan Rice.

BECKEL: That's the number one question here. If that's case, if they took facts, I mean, these talking points get handled around to a lot of different agencies before they made public. If they took the facts and they altered the facts in the talking points, then somebody is in deep trouble.

If they took it and they edited it as normally through a government process, they didn't want this out, they want that piece out. If they took facts and changed them, then somebody has to fall for it.

GUTFELD: I wanted to just show this picture. This is White House chief of staff, Denis, McDonough?


GUTFELD: Here he is, he brought donuts to the press room.

PERINO: So nice.

GUTFELD: Yes. He just wanted to thank the press for all the great work they do.

PERINO: Interesting timing.

BOLLING: One question, is Susan -- Ambassador Rice going testify?

GUTFELD: I don't know.


BECKEL: She is getting an award tomorrow.

BOLLING: I know. But why won't they ask her, hey, who changed the talking points?

PERINO: Why don't they ask the people who prepped her for her Sunday shows? Because from the Friday to Saturday -- believe me, there were people that were running through her paces. At any point did somebody say, I don't think this is story is going to hold on up?

BOLLING: So, can we do this? Can "The Five" -- the congressional, can we ask Darrell Issa, to call Ambassador Rice or former Ambassador Rice --

BECKEL: He can always subpoena if he wants to.

BOLLING: I would love to hear it.

GUTFELD: All right. We got to move on.

Point about the doughnuts, why did they bring the doughnuts?

BECKEL: There is a hole in the story.

GUTFELD: Very good.


GUILFOYLE: Why didn't they bring doughnut holes?

GUTFELD: Nice one, Dana. You're a terrible person.

Content and Programming Copyright 2013 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.