Charlie Rose of PBS (and CBS News) enjoys an elevated reputation among a wide swath of the educated public, and not just limited to the left leaning portion of that demographic slice. But an hour-long interview he conducted Thursday night with National Security Adviser Susan Rice on PBS should damage that reputation. Somehow or other, he managed to completely avoid the subject of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic facility on 9/11/2012, and Ms. Rice’s role as a disinformation officer spreading the outright lie that the attack was sparked by an obscure video that no one in Libya had even heard of.

Paul Bremmer of Newsbusters documents what ought to be career-killer for Rose, demonstrating how at  multiple moments, the topic was talked around and avoided by Rose.

He also poses the fundamental question:

You have to wonder if Rose had agreed not to mention the B-word before the interview began.  If he did, that was a troubling concession to make for the interview. If not, what's troubling is Rose's journalistic malpractice in completely omitting Benghazi altogether.

Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming book has a chapter on Benghazi that has been released, and in it she lays down the party line: omerta on Benghazi, making the claim that any discussion of the topic somehow damages the honor of the 4 men who died there, in no small part because of her negligence in providing security.  She, who lied to the faces of their families when the bodies were returned, now poses as a protector of the memory of their loved ones.

And it certainly looks like Charlie Rose is following the Hillary party line.

He ought to be ashamed. But of course, on the cocktail party circuit among like minded progressives, he will be lionized.

And our tax dollars will continue to underwrite his propaganda