After last night's debate, fact-checkers at the Associated Press, The Washington Post and Foreign Policy accused Vice President Joe Biden of misstating facts about the security situation in Libya, but this morning, Biden has found a way to wiggle out of the salivating maw of his fact-checking foes.
To put it bluntly: Plausible deniability, my friends.
It all started like this: On Thursday night, debate moderator Martha Raddatz asked him why the Obama administration didn't beef up security ahead of the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi. "We weren't told they wanted more security there," he said.
It was red meat for any fact-checker even remotely familiar with events in Washington this week. "We weren't told?" Didn't Biden realize that at Wednesday's House Oversight hearing on the security failures in Libya, the whole point was that security officials repeatedly requested additional security personnel to State Department officials, and that State Department officials openly acknowledged rejecting those requests? What do you mean "we weren't told"?
The Washington Post's Erik Wemple expressed disappointment that foreign affairs savvy Martha Raddatz didn't question him on it. "Raddatz: Just a bit soft on Libya" read the headline. In a separate post, Wemple's colleague Glenn Kessler referenced Wednesday's hearing, saying "Maybe Biden was too busy in debate prep to watch?"