At his press conference last week, President Obama defended the “honor” of his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice by challenging Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte that if they were angry that Rice was sent on five Sunday shows to peddle a demonstrable lie their beef was with him and not the ambassador.

Shorter Obama: I sent Rice out to lie.

Well, the cover-up continued this morning. In the 50 seconds or so of “Face the Nation” that I had the intestinal fortitude to watch, Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) told host Bob Schieffer that the reason Rice went out and peddled the lie that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was the result of a YouTube video and protest grown out of control was that the administration was attempting to protect sources.

Yes, apparently calling it a terrorist attack somehow would’ve let the terrorists know that, despite the best impression the Obama administration tries to show the world, the U.S. government isn’t completely blinkered by the whole “religion of peace” crap and we do know that a lot of Muslims really do hate us.

And we’re supposed to believe that telling the YouTube video is necessary to protect sources? Seriously? The terrorists don’t know that we had people in the consulate providing “intelligence” in real-time on the attack? The terrorists wouldn’t guess that we would have unmanned drones circling over the area? The terrorists might not suspect that we monitor Facebook postings?

Which of those sources/methods is protected by telling the YouTube lie? I can come up with various ways to tell the truth without revealing one of those obvious sources.

And if those sources were so important to protect, why have they been revealed in the weeks following the election? (Don’t answer that.)

Yesterday, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, the go-to site for the enlightened liberal elite made the following observation on Twitter:

RWs certain Benghazi is massive scandal, just can't seem to decide why.Deep breath & repeat: the election is over. #desperate

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 17, 2012

My response to him was what would be called a soft-R Rating because I only used the expletive once. But that demonstrates the attitude of Democrats high and low to the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three others in a terrorist attack overseas—it’s not a big deal. They all would’ve died anyways, eventually.

Democrats also don’t mind being lied to anymore if it’s Obama doing the lying. (See also: Drone strikes, Guantanamo Bay.)

After the scandal broke about CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer opined that the Benghazi scandal would get more extensive coverage on the networks and in the mainstream media because sex was now involved. Unfortunately, I think Krauthammer is wrong. The press has focused plenty on the sex and still continues to largely ignore the lies surrounding the Benghazi attack.

Aside from alone question from Fox News’ Ed Henry at last week’s press conference—which none of his colleagues seemed interested in following up on—the network morning shows and evening newscasts seem uninterested in what President Obama knew and when he knew it.

The lapdog media’s protection of their favorite president continues apace.