This article is more detailed and objective than I expected from AP. Falsehoods are likely entwined within it, but it reveals a steady evolution of the regime’s story, and the media’s movement away from slavish acceptance. To paraphrase, “Obama was running for reelection on a ‘saved GM, killed Bin Ladin, whipped the terrorists’ claim. After 5 days of massaging talking points post-Benghazi, Susan Rice emerged with a narrative that was er...’inaccurate’. Mean Republicans accused the administration of twisting the facts for politics.” I guess that’s a “subtle” way of admitting Obama, Hillary, et al, deliberately lied like a prayer rug. They forgot to mention the role of the media in delivering the lies and influencing the election.
The interesting part involves Ham’s spin. You see, the military was in the dark about the scope of CIA and State Dept programs, so naturally all the rapid security response forces were unavailable. I mean, why be in a state of heightened readiness on 9/11? Then the time gap between waves of attackers fooled and paralyzed them (even though he admits a military presence would have deterred the second phase and doesn’t explain how having hours of extra time would deal a response to the first attack). And a handful of security forces were “held up for hours in Tripoli by the Libyan gov’t”. I recall that Obama, Biden, NSC, SecDef, and everybody BUT Hillary, were involved on the White House end, and had live surveillance from the drone. Was it their job to connect the secret dots and clue the military command in on the situation? Was it Obama’s job to call the PM of Libya and offer to accept his immediate 100% cooperation RIGHT FREAKING NOW. Oh, no...
Article also says that 1100 pages of closed door testimony is supposed to be posted. I can’t find it.