Just as predicted, Greta Van Susteren acted as though former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice never told her that there was no reason to jump to inflammatory, accusatory conclusions about the attacks on the American consulate at Benghazi, Libya. Instead, just 24 hours later, Van Susteren trotted out Donald Rumsfeld, of all people, to point more fingers at the Obama administration.

As I wrote when Hannity trotted out Rummy for the same purposes:

If anything should discredit Fox’s attempts to turn Benghazi into Watergate, it’s their use of Donald Rumsfeld to throw stones of foreign policy blunders and cover-ups from his Iraq “Weapons of Mass Destruction” glass house. Not that that would ever be mentioned on “fair and balanced” Fox. In fact, I can’t recall even a scintilla of the interest in the false premises used by the George W. Bush administration to invade Iraq as there is in fingerpointing against the Obama administration before the Benghazi investigation has been completed. So it looks like a twofer for Fox in trotting out Rumsfeld to attack Obama. On the one hand, it looks like an authoritative attack coming from a former Secretary of Defense that Fox viewers saw little to no questioning of his credibility. At the same time, it helps boost that cred by disappearing those black marks on his record.

Although Van Susteren is often touted as the “liberal” balance on Fox, last night – as is often the case with her – was more of the same old, same old.

Van Susteren did not challenge Rice the night before when she said it was better not to jump to conclusions and, instead, allow the official investigations to do their job in finding out what went wrong at Benghazi. Nor when Rice said this:

…When there is a fog of war like this, there are a lot of competing stories coming in, there’s a lot of competing information coming in and it takes a little while to know precisely what has happened. …There are protocols in place. I have no reason to believe that they weren’t followed. But it is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what’s going on as it’s unfolding.

But with Rumsfeld, Van Susteren could not resist jumping in to add her own criticisms of the Obama administration. It was as though Van Susteren had discredited everything Rice said - without a word of explanation.

And, of course, nothing was said about Rumsfeld’s own awful record on the Iraq war. Here’s some very relevant information about her guest that - just like Hannity - Van Susteren failed to tell the “we report, you decide” network’s viewers:

Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD’s were:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think—let me take that, both pieces—the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. 

Rumsfeld said the U.S. invasion would be welcomed by Iraqis.

Lehrer: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?

Rumsfeld: There’s obviously the Shia population in Iraq and the Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam Hussein’s regime, they represent a large fraction of the total. There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that.

Rumsfeld doubted the Iraq war would last even six months.

“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

2/23/18 update: The video is no longer available.