This wasn’t the lowlight of the briefing either. The lowlight was Carney mumbling about the White House having made “stylistic” changes to the CIA’s talking points when the entire world now knows, per ABC’s story this morning, that they weren’t merely stylistic. It took 12 edits to eliminate multiple references to terror groups plus, at State’s request, the excision of an entire paragraph noting that CIA had warned before about jihadis operating in Benghazi before Rice got the memo. Petraeus, according to Steve Hayes, was stunned at the revisions. And meanwhile we still don’t have an answer as to why Rice went out the next day and told Tapper that the Benghazi attack was a “direct result” of the Mohammed video. But if you’re dissatisfied with all that, find a mirror and look long and hard into it knowing this: Mitt Romney was dissatisfied too. How do you feel now? Not so good, huh?
Incidentally, a State Department spokesman was asked today what Victoria Nuland meant when she said of the first revisions to the talking points, “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership.” Who in State’s “leadership” was unhappy with the CIA’s first take? No answer. But a happy side effect of having Carney stand there today and essentially blame CIA, as head of the interagency group that drafted the final talking points that ended up in Rice’s hands, is that we might get even more disgruntled whistleblowers to come forward, this time from the intelligence community. Keep ’em coming.