NBC host David Gregory, who had a tense exchange with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) on "Meet the Press" in February and disputed McCain's statement about any sort of cover-up on Benghazi, said Thursday on "Morning Joe" that the Benghazi hearing demonstrated how people on the ground knew clearly from the beginning it was a terrorist attack and questioned the Obama administration's "gymnastics" of describing what happened.
"The people who were on the ground there saying this was clearly a terrorist attack, everybody knew it and the mindset of the administration was that it was not, and as a result, they didn't respond properly," Gregory said. "The question still remains about why there was at least sloppiness with regard to why they were describing this in the way that they were, when it very quickly became apparent that this was a terrorist attack."
JOE SCARBOROUGH: We talked about it last hour. We're now getting into a very dangerous position for this administration. They've already been caught trying to bully and run over a 22-year state department veteran, for effectively demoting him.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Lisa Myers reporting saying they dispute that.
SCARBOROUGH: Right. In fact, the New York Times has a story effectively demoting him. And now they're coming out saying he's a liar, saying he doesn't remember the facts correctly. David Gregory, this is where we get into dangerous territory with administrations. Sometimes they don't cut their losses, admit they made a mistake and move on.
DAVID GREGORY: I think the critical questions here that are, in part, being obscured by partisan this investigation has become, is why the security situation, when it was deteriorating in Benghazi was not more fulsomely addressed. That's something the Accountability Review Board was very critical of in its report, and why there seems to be so much gymnastics around how to describe what this was, and I really think that's what the core of the hearing was about. The people who were on the ground there saying this was clearly a terrorist attack, everybody knew it and the mindset of the administration was that it was not, and as a result, they didn't respond properly. All of those points about how they responded, when they responded, what was possible in the way of any kind of military response is something that has been litigated and will still be litigated in terms of what the facts were and what the military said at the time. But if you look at the talking points and how they were drafted and let's just remember, Susan Rice was saying on the talk shows, including "Meet the Press," what the intelligence community agreed she should say and that is something that the Director of National Intelligence has come out and said. So she is, by that definition, more of a peripheral player here. The question still remains about why there was at least sloppiness with regard to why they were describing this in the way that they were, when it very quickly became apparent that this was a terrorist attack.