House on Benghazi

This to me seems like the crux of the matter regarding Benghazi, when the event transferred from a terrorist attack (as known and relayed by Mr. Hicks) to a protest mob over a video.  It's the reason Mr. Hicks is now testifying--and likely the reason they didn't talk to him initially or within the ARB investigation.[correction, the ARB spoke to Mr Hicks but his version of not protest was not given initial consideration].
So why did they change the reason for the attack?  We can make some good guesses, but we did not learn exactly why today.  So with this Cleveland rape story and the Jodi Arias verdict taking the stage Hillary will survive this easily, merrily cackling her 'what difference' refrain, unless something further emerges that actually places a memo in her hand commanding people to cover up the attack.

But the REAL crux of the matter is probably something nobody has talked about until today.  Forward to about the 4:15 mark if you don't want to hear Chaffetz bloviate where Mr. Thompson comments on the importance of not leaving our people behind and the effects such a thing may have on the future.



MORE 5/8/13

The White House press corpse actually did their jobs today and asked Jay Carney some questions about the hearing, which he deflected as usual with filibustering spin pablum.  Nobody cracked through, although at the end there was one reporter who made headway regarding the altered talking points (as revealed in the Weekly Standard story, bold added for my own amusement):

Q And the second question I had was on the stylistic, not substantive, edits to the talking points. And from testimony today we are seeing that those edits struck any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region; that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi by al Qaeda-linked groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya; and that extremists linked to al Qaeda may have participated in the attack on the Benghazi mission. Is that substance or stylistic?

MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, again, I would point you to the intelligence community and the fact that they made the drafts and they issued the points. Secondly, I would say when it comes to stylistic edits we’ve been very clear about the specific edits that were made at the suggestion of the White House. And, again, when it comes to -- one of the edits you just mentioned, the talking points as delivered referred to extremists and we’re not talking about -- when we talk about extremists in the region that Libya is in, it’s clear what we’re talking about. But assertions that people knew --

Q Can you tell me why --

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the intelligence community.

Q It was made by a CIA official. I want to make that clear. But I do --

MR. CARNEY: So I would refer you to the CIA. George.

When a spokesman gets short like that and cuts a reporter off they have hit paydirt.  Carney amusingly suggests that they never lied when saying earlier that only one 'stylistic' change was recommended by the White House, but the emails suggest the State Department was integral in getting those changed.  The CIA doesn't control the talking points for an administration anyway, it's absurd to suggest they had the final say.
Yet there he is referring someone to the CIA to explain why they changed the talking points (when told to by higher-ups).  Wow.  That's an exercise in obfuscation that knows few bounds.

Here's a refresher about DNI James Clapper and his initial admission last year about not knowing who changed the talking points, only to emerge a few days later and admit that yeah, it was us:



So this is transparency alright--transparent BS.  No Republican politician, even a dog catcher, could get away with this kind of flim-flam.  Why, one needs a willing suspension of disbelief before proceeding any further on this story.