Benghazi apologist Wasserman-Schultz claims ‘false’ isn’t ‘wrong,’ pushes Piers Morgan over the edge

A few years from now, when people ask themselves”wasn’t there a DNC chairman named Wasserman-something” they’ll remember this interview as one of her most embarrassing. It’s probably not as good as lying about the Israeli Ambassador, or looking silly on Anderson Cooper, or being named the “least effective surrogate,” or getting called out on Mediscare lies, or claiming not to to know which candidate the Obama Superpac is supporting — but it’s memorable.

Many viewers immediately challenged DWS:

Morgan earned compliments for his willingness to interrupt the White House mouthpiece:

Not surprisingly, Morgan had his critics. Apparently his schtick wouldn’t cut it on MSNBC:

And some said that he didn’t provide balance:

Here’s an idea: The next time Reince Priebus (the Chairman of the Republican National Committee) goes on CNN to defend a Republican administration trying to hide the truth about a terrorist attack that killed four American citizens — including an Ambassador — then Morgan can rip into him.


  • SAndrews

    Piers Morgan responding to false doesn’t mean wrong brings back memories of the Monty Python sketch “The Argument Clinic”.

    • Mark Stephens

      No it doesn’t.

      • SAndrews

        Oh, I’m sorry. Is this a five minute argument or the full half-hour?

      • Grandma HeadInjury

        This isn’t an argument, this is just contradiction!

        • Darryl Wagner

          No its not.

        • Richard Jefferies

          If I argue with you I must take up a contrary position.

    • Lia Markham

      Better yet, how about the Dead Parrot sketch?

      • Darkstar1661

        nah, that one doesnt come until November when MSNBC begins to insist losing is actually winning…

        • rivers

          They’ll be winning like Charlie Sheen come November 6. Bring out the Tiger blood. Or juice of whatever the hell it was..

      • SAndrews

        Obama’s debate performance wasn’t dead…. it was pinin’ for the fjords.

      • Shawn Smith

        Are you saying they’re planning on waving around ambassador Stevens’ body on a stick and claiming he’s not dead? It would be the strangest thing I’ve seen so far, but not by much.

  • Jack Deth

    Is it just me, or does DWS sound more and more like a transplanted New York Yenta when she attempts to lie so badly?

    • Brett McMicken

      if she had a more nasally voice she would be the nanny

  • Darkstar1661

    Guess it just depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is…

  • syvyn11

    Remember this is the party whose president once said “what’s the definition of ‘is’ is”.

  • CarolK

    Oy! Debbie Washerwoman Schmaltz: never met a Democrat lie she didn’t love to defend.

    • Brett McMicken

      she didn’t waste any time on turning it around on the republicans for investigating!

  • Love of Country

    D Chambers@ryc1964
    Piers Morgan pisses me off! That’s why I strongly prefer MSNBC over CNN!


    Hey D ….. that’s right ….. you and your president are too weak and cowardly to be held semi-accountable about anything and clearly avoid accountability at ALL costs …. how embarrassing for the both of you! I also just read one of your previous tweets where you said Dinglebarry lost the debate because he didn’t want to come across as the angry black man …. lololol

    I first heard of such a ludicrous phenomenon about a year and a half ago uttered by Kirsten Powers (before she fully embraced integrity) and have since heard of such foolishness about a dozen times and it’s always by ignorant, disingenuous liberals ….. I have never once heard a Republican or Independent call anyone an “angry black man” in all my life and you people can’t stop talking about it as if it happened all the time. I guess you fools are worried about scaring off your own historically, chronically and forever disgraceful racist base …. it sucks to be a democrat, huh?

  • Ben Bollman

    First Stacey Dash, now this? Is Piers Morgan turning conservative or does he just actually want someone to watch his show or CNN in general? I’m guessing the latter….

    • Love of Country

      Well sure …. because had he been turning conservative …. he would have called ’em all liars instead of just bringing it up and letting it go.

  • laserblast92

    Got the second string bullsh!tters of the bench….

  • weRbroke

    Please let us get these asshats out of POWER before they start something really bad…making a press statement based on info that turns out to be FALSE is a HIGHER CRIME than keeping your mouth shut until the FACTS surface. This one is barking that they made a statement nation-wide, let the media RUN IT, then come back DAYS LATER and slide in an OOPS, My Bad? WTF? she is on fullblown STUPID. FL get that bat OUT of office, she is a lying HACK with absolutely NO SHRED of CREDIBILTITY left, only that hoof print on her face.

    • tlc_ darling

      I agree..we need to get these idiots out of office now! The attacks are happening over seas now, but it won’t be long before there happening here in the states and then what? Who are they going to blame then? I can’t believe people are still supporting the Obama administration. They are dangerous! AMERICANS NEED TO WAKE THE HELL UP! This isn’t a game! The economy was the front running topic of this election,as it should be,but we also need to make National Security a major topic as well.

  • Renny

    I didn’t see that much ‘over the edge’ on his part. I felt over the edge watching her lie though. It’s Mitt Romney’s fault! Ohhhhh. ‘Depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.’ Tragically familiar.

  • Alan Tuttle

    I just don’t get it. Why was it important for the Obama admin to provide information immediately, when days later it was proven that it was all false? This is what MSM does – get the information out in order to be the first to crack a story, only to get it wrong. But in this case, the Obama admin is doing the reporting. That’s what people like Piers Morgan should be asking – why was it important to put out uninvestigated and unverified information immediately? The answer: so that the Admin can control the narrative, and have the MSM follow suit. Even if the information was wrong, people only remember the first thing they heard. And both the Admin and MSM know this fact. I bet majority of people still believe the movie was the cause of everything.

    • Shawn Smith

      It wasn’t just that the information was inaccurate. That would be speaking in error. They knew it was inaccurate. That’s simply lying.

  • tjp77

    Yet they still can’t point to ONE SINGLE piece of intelligence on the day of the attack or otherwise that ever suggested the video caused the attack. If that was their best information, then WHERE DID IT COME FROM? The State Department has already made it crystal clear that they NEVER ONCE even mistakenly referenced the video as a cause for the attack, and the intelligence community has said the same thing.

    And still the administration ran with this completely BOGUS COVER STORY for over a WEEK.

    I’m sorry, but if that’s not an attempt at a cover up, then I don’t know what is. It might be a half-assed cover up, but that doesn’t make it any less egregious.

    • RosiesSeeingRed


  • Brett McMicken

    all of this garbage from the party of “bush knew”

  • Richard Jefferies

    Unfortunately you’ll never get rid of DWS no matter how stupid her comments. She was hired for the job because she so entrenched in her district that she is virtually immovable, so she, like her west coast wicked witch sister Nancy Pelosi, can say all the vile stuff democrats in less secure districts would like to say.

  • orringtonmom (D)

    do you think that people that have to interview DWS get out of bed in the morning that day and think, “damn it.”

  • TocksNedlog

    There is only one possible translation of “‘false’ doesn’t mean ‘wrong'”, and that is: shoot first, aim later. In other words, they are guilty of doing EXACTLY what they accused Mitt Romney of doing, with the slightly important difference that he got it right . . . and they didn’t.

  • Joe W.

    Why didn’t the liberals defend President Bush when HE claimed that he acted on the Intel that HE had at the time?? What goes around, comes around, folks, and this time, it is going to cost Barack his job and Moochelle her lobster and expensive vacations. Karma is a bitch, no??

  • Fringe

    The best part is that she stammers on at length about needing to deliver a message “based on the intelligence that was available at the time”. What about eight days later, when the White House Press Secretary, let alone the Secretary of State, were admitting that the events were a pre-planned terrorist action (as opposed to a spontaneous party); meanwhile, the Empty Suit/Chair combo goes on the View, and keeps telling us its all about an anti-Mohammad YouTube video?

    How’s that “intelligence available at the time” argument working now?

    Lord, it must be loud in the echo chamber betwixt her ears…

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    Wow, she really thinks people don’t see right through that? As if our intelligence community made stuff up to feed to the Obama administration even if it was seemingly plucked out of nowhere? Liberals are so used to having dimwit followers, they forget that everyone else actually have brains.