The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Administration ‘Completely Wrong’ About Libya, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Admits, But ‘That Doesn’t Mean It Was False’

Posted on | October 11, 2012 | 20 Comments

Ladies and gentlemen, The Queen of Unintentional Comedy:

PIERS MORGAN: “It is pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts. Isn’t it?”
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence they were given…”
MORGAN: “That turned out to be completely wrong–”
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “Well, that doesn’t mean it was false.”
MORGAN: “What?”

Hat-tip: Marooned in Marin on Twitter.


  • JeffS

    So the Dems prefer to be labeled incompetent, rather than liars? Nice messaging there, Debbie.

    Me, I’d say that they are incompetent liars.

  • Adjoran

    Morgan is an idiot. They were lying, they HAD the correct information and CHOSE to put out false information. That’s the very definition of lying.

    The initial information WAS correct, it did NOT “turn out to be wrong,” only the Administration lies from Obama to Hillary to Rice to Carney turned out to be wrong, but they all KNEW they were wrong as they stated them.

  • Adjoran

    Personally, I think that, while they messed up this lie, they have been rather proficient liars over the last 40 months, so I would consider them more to be lying incompetents instead.

  • Christy Waters

    No, what’s “terribly unfortunate” (to use her term) is that four Americans died (only a month ago) after numerous requests for added security were denied by the State Dept, and the Obama admin is obsessed with fucking Big Bird!! What the everloving hell is going on in this country?!?!

  • Michael Smith

    At least she is consistent with her exercise of post-modernistic logic – it is true because I believe it to be true – even though in this case it is being proven that the intel was there, they just wanted something else to be “true” because the actual truth is “unhelpful”. They are too stupid to recognize their own illogic – bad intel under Bush = “Bus lied”, the same under Obama – “That doesn’t mean it was false”. These people aren’t liars or morons – they are both.

  • Charles

    The Obama administration has been facing some pretty strong headwinds from CNN lately, from Erin to Anderson to Piers. Maybe picking the rival MSNBC’s Forward as the campaign slogan was not the best PR move. In any case, CNN seems intent on putting the period at the end of Forward.

  • JeffS


  • AnonymousDrivel

    Meanwhile, as the American people were appropriately updated with new and improved information (according to Wasserman-Schultz) to correct the record, there’s an American “film-maker” sitting in jail for expressing his First Amendment rights and having an opinion made public, an opinion that had not a thing to do at all with the Administration colluded lie that he incited riots in a land far away. And, no, he wasn’t arrested for being an unsavory figure. He was the same character before he was scapegoated by the Obama Administration when he was a free man.

    Nope, nothing sinister about this at all.

  • Michael Morris

    Dude, I agree with you. There is no way the administration didn’t know about this attack BEFORE IT HAPPENED. But you shouldn’t bash Piers Morgan for that, he’s finally pulling his head out of the sand and doing his job. Furthermore, he just called the current administration “un-American.”

    This is a big step for Morgan, and you should be supportive. If we fuss at people for improving themselves then they’ll stop trying to do improve themselves at all.

    When he starts backsliding, though, then you can bash him all you want.

  • scarymatt

    Sorry, folks. I have to side with DWS here. It’s been made abundantly clear (“Bush lied, people died”) that you lie when you say something in good faith that later turns out to be incorrect. Also, in Benghazi the people died first, which makes this instance extra confusing and narrative-impaired.

    There’s no way the week of dissembling by the administration was in good faith. QED

  • Peter Ingemi

    There is one point that in fairness should be made.

    I don’t call the Bush admin liars when the intel said one thing and was off.

    The question really is “When did this admin know when there were no protestors in Libya?”

  • Bob Belvedere

    They are liars and morons and delusional.

  • Bob Belvedere

    If sensible men are able, in the future, to write the history of these times, they will point to the incarceration of this man as one of the more significant aspects of this saga.

    American freedom and liberty has suffered what could be a fatal blow. Precedents rarely go away.

  • McGehee

    “False” doesn’t mean only that which is known to be untrue when it’s said; it means “not true,” whether the speaker knew that or not.

    If the facts didn’t support what was believed, it was still false. It may not have been intentional deception, but it is false.

  • Pingback: Piers Morgan Gets Tough With DWS On Libya » Pirate's Cove()

  • Pingback: Debbie “Whats Her Name” Schultz redefines “lying liar” « The Daley Gator()

  • Pingback: I’m Not Making This Up, You Know | hogewash()

  • richard mcenroe

    So now we can arrest celebritities and newwspaper editors for supporting terrorist movements, illegal immigration and so on, right? I mean, what’s John Peter Zenger done for us LATELY?

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    The White House is now claiming Libya is only an issue because Ryan and Romney made it so: WH claims Libya an issue because of #RomneyRyan? Maybe Biden can explain? #tcot

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Sadly true. This is a huge story that has now been pretty much buried. The ME and embassy fiasco has grabbed the headlines, but the truly lasting event was this precedent against free speech and the self-imposition of Sharia law wherein one – exactly one – religion has been promoted above all others AND at the expense of weakening/violating the 1st Amdt.