Going back to Secretary Hillary Clinton's testimony on the attack, I believe it is now legit to view her anger and frustration not at the questioners - but borne of her knowledge that her Department had lied - or had orchestrated the lies of Susan Rice - to the American people.
Why? To protect the Obama campaign narrative that he had Al-Qaeda on the run and national security was not nearly as important an issue as whether or not Mitt Romney's dog liked riding on the top of the family car.
I have no idea where this will end up. It does not appear that it - in spite of many of your fondest wishes - rises to the level of impeachment of the President, but it may put an indelible stain on the reputation of Hillary Clinton.
Chris Jansing tried to press me (going back to the politics or policy question) as to whether House Republicans were on a witch hunt (my ironic phrase not hers) because Mrs. Clinton is such a "formidable candidate" for 2016.
I said that was exactly what people said about her in 2007 and "how did that turn out?"
There will be a couple of tip-offs as to whether this will have political (and policy) legs.
First, if Democrats begin to peel away from defending the Administration generally, and/or Hillary Clinton in particular about the way this was handled.
Second, if the press corps begins referring to it as: Benghzai-gate.
Off to do good works in Southern Africa with the ONE Campaign. I should be able to report from there more-or-less on our regular Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule.
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A link to a column by National Journal's Ron Fournier on why this is important to Obama, and a posting by John Hudson on the Foreign Policy website on what we learned from Wednesday's hearing.
Also a topic-appropriate Mullfoto.