I still see no reason why it makes any difference whether it was terrorism or a film video. It was pretty clear from the first day that, in Libya at least, it was obviously a combination of the two. The dozen or so other riots were clearly the video. What could the Administration have possibly gained by lying? Yes, I've heard the GOP explanations and I just can't follow them. Now they're counting angels on a pinhead, arguing about the exact wordings of...what was that again? And let's not forget, this is all playing out in the midst of a CIA operation underway in Benghazi, one now compromised all to hell for short term political gain and a 4% difference in a rich man's taxes.

This is like the original Romney response to the Libya attack, premature and ill-considered. And now they're in too deep to back out, and they're too embarassed at how bad they bungled it to admit it.

A valid case might be made that our entire embassy security program has problems, and that MAYBE anemic funding approved by the House is not the cause. Fine, but after crying wolf on this issue, no one will ever believe even legitimate points being raised by this crowd again. They've given this suicide mission to McCain, they never cared for him much anyway.

So the conspiracy mill will gin up, circling around the Petraeus affair and the implied "cover up" and "blackmail" (thank heavens he was the darling of the Right, if it had been some Democrat we'd never hear the end of this). The consolation prize will be gutting Ambassador Rice. They need to salvage something from this fiasco, and ruining an innocent's career just to cover their incompetence and pettiness is what these people are all about. A nation of shopkeepers.