There is heat generating around the idea that the Right Wing needs to develop an actual accusation relating to Benghazi-palooza.
In response to this, there seems to be some crystallization forming around the now somewhat "infamous" talking points of Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talk show circuit: namely, that she repeatedly said that the attacks were spontaneous, when in fact, by that time, knowledge was coming together that the attacks were an actual terrorist action.
Just recently on the Daily KOS front page, there was a diary describing the 12 email evolution of the talking points as released by ABC news, in which you can see the talking points changing. A process that is enlightening, but not all that scandalous.
But, the sense on the Right is that Talking Points issue is the crime / cover-up. This is best expressed, perhaps, by this comment posted recently to an article on the issue:
flowchartWhile the above quote has a lot of sizzle and the release from ABC about the talking points is interesting, even exciting possibly to those who are digging for evidence that the talking points were changed ...
7:54 AM PDT
The issue involved is whether the executive branch of the government, headed by an elected official, Barack Obama, purposely lied to the American people about the motivation for this attack in order to avoid negative political consequences two month prior to the election. That is what occurred and the defense offered by liberals is essentially, "so what"?
I ask those people that feel this is nothing more than a political witch hunt, why is it ok to LIE for purely political gain, but it is not ok to seek the TRUTH for the same reasons?
The big questions remain. What crime? What cover-up?
It is not a crime to go on the Sunday Talk shows (all of them) and give bad information. If that was indeed a crime, it's possible John McCain would be serving a life sentence by now.
Even more so, as much as we find it unseemly, it's also not a crime to go on the Sunday Talk shows and LIE to the country about policy, decisions, etc. The Sunday Talk shows are not a legal forum wherein interviewees are sworn to tell the truth lest they be held in contempt of court.
But, no one - aside from those on the Right - is even accusing the Obama administration of necessarily telling outright lies on the Sunday Shows. Rather, they're just saying that Susan Rice participated in retelling bad information (at best) or spouting misinformation (at worst) that was quickly corrected by the administration itself.
Is it what we want as a public to have our officials parading bad information, misinformation or lies on television? No.
Is it a crime? No.
The second issue is whether there was a cover-up. Well, there are two rebuttals to this. The first is that if a crime wasn't committed, by deductive reasoning, there cannot have been a cover-up.
The second rebuttal is that cover-ups become crimes when the cover-up is achieved through undue or illegal influence. Susan Rice and the administration weren't using undue or illegal influence by going on the Sunday Shows. They were invited guests who repeated an outdated talking point.
And since the administration quickly went out of its way to insure that once the facts were known to squash the talking point of the attack's links to outrage over an anti-islamic video, one has to squint incredibly hard to see a cover-up; much less a cover-up that broke the law.
In short: no one likes being lied to by their government, no matter their party affiliation. But, suggesting that somehow the issue of the Sunday Talking Points after Benghazi amounted to anything more than a career road block for Susan Rice and a black mark on the CIA / State / admin is the pure definition of a "stretch of the imagination."