The US State Department covered up the Benghazi attack. Not that it happened, but why it happened. They did this cover-up for politics: to help Barack Obama win a second term. But don’t just take our word, or that of other alternative media, for that. Take it from ABC News.

The Benghazi attack hearings

The hearings into the Benghazi attack, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, are riveting enough. They lasted for more than eight hours of exhaustive testimony and bitter argument behind the committee dais. Those eight hours showed an ugly side of government that Progressives confidently said went away with Watergate. Not true. Victor Lasky famously said (and wrote), It Didn’t Start with Watergate. Nor did it end with Watergate.

Those hearings were like the hearings before Senator Sam J. Ervin’s (D-NC) Watergate Committee, only with the Party labels switched. With this difference: no one was laughing. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) did not have a chance to bring the House down the way Sam Ervin brought the Senate down with this question to a Watergate burglary suspect:

How did you expect to liberate Cuba by perpetrating a burglary in Washington, DC?!?

The other difference: the Democrats on that committee embarrassed themselves as they tried to blame the victims. For instance, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) feebly said to Gregory Hicks, the then deputy chief of mission in Libya,

Death is a part of life.

And in his opening statement, he railed from the daïs that Republicans were going to use the hearings for their own purposes. Thus he drew the battle lines early. And almost without exception, his Democratic colleagues tried again and again to impugn the character of the witnesses.

But they could do nothing to shake their testimony. And that was devastating. For half an hour, Gregory Hicks described what the Benghazi attack was like. And then he repeated: he said to start with that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. Then came Ambassador Susan Rice’ amazing interview in which she blamed the video, “The Innocence of Muslims” – and said “the intelligence community” blamed the video.

But even that was not the worst. Hicks described how the Benghazi attack affected his career. Before the Benghazi attack, he had never had a black mark on his record – or “an adverse performance review” in HR-speak. But when he challenged Susan Rice on her five appearances on the Sunday talk shows, a supervisor called him into his office. And then and there lambasted him. And ultimately, she – or someone else – broke him to desk jockey.

Benghazi attack talking points

Hillary Clinton. Photo: US Department of State

And today we hear of something much worse.

In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes reported that the State Department changed the talking points on the Benghazi attack that the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies had prepared. This gave the lie to Ambassador Rice’ claim (see above) that “the intelligence community” blamed the video for the attack.

Most of the mainstream media ignored this report. But then ABC-TV’s Jonathan Karl did something amazing. For a mainstream media reporter, that is. He found twelve earlier versions of the talking points. He then strung them together to show how the State Department shortened and sanitized them. Then he left this report on ABC-TV’s Web site, and gave an interview on Good Morning America. In it he laid it on the line:the State Department “scrubbed” the text of any mention of Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, or any other terrorist group. Or any whisper about terrorist threats in the months before the Benghazi attack.

John Nolte at Breitbart.com picked up on this. He also picked up on how the leftist media took it. Glenn Thrush at Politico.com scornfully called it a “distraction.” (This is the same Glenn Thrush who was trying to rebut the three witnesses at the Benghazi attack hearing while they were telling their stories.) Eric Boehlert at Media Matters for America sent a “tweet” that made zero sense:

so all those claims that WH/Obama demanded changes in talking points, it’s ok to ignore them, right?

Wrong. Dead wrong. And if this is any indicator, the Washington press corps know it. And the White House knows it, too. Today Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, spent seven minutes trying to dodge questions about the Benghazi attack and the talking points. Finally the White House press corps started laughing at him.

What does this mean for Democrats?

This could mean that Hillary Clinton will never become President of the United States. Her

What difference, at this point, does it make?

will go down in history along with Cain’s

I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper? [Genesis 4:9]

This story could mean more than this. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) wonders whether the House might impeach Obama on the strength of the Benghazi attack cover-up. Now “impeachment” and “removal by impeachment” do not mean the same thing. Whether Governor Huckabee meant to suggest that the Senate would muster two-thirds of its members to convict Obama when trying the impeachment, is not clear. Still, the spectacle of Chief Justice John Roberts presiding over a special (and likely stormy) session of the United States Senate, convened to try an impeachment of Barack Obama, cannot seem a pleasant prospect to Obama or any of his allies.

Benghazi attack videos:

Jonathan Karl on changing talking points:

The complete edition, in widescreen:

In three parts, in standard screen:

Gregory Hicks describes the Benghazi attack first-hand:

Admiral Lyons: “tip of the iceberg”

Three reasons why the Benghazi attack still matters

The President and only the President orders security or rescue forces to stand down

Press Secretary Jay Carney spend seven minutes doubling down on Benghazi attack lies

Was the Benghazi attack a joint military strike?

NBC reporter says Benghazi attack story now worries Democrats

The video, “The Innocence of Muslims,” that gave the State Department its excuse.

[subscribe2]