In response to:

When What Happens in Benghazi Travels to Boston

hal_incandeza Wrote: Apr 27, 2013 7:22 AM
For those few who actually want to read the analysis (fact checking is not prevalent in the comment section) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/issas-absurd-claim-that-clintons-signature-means-she-personally-approved-it/2013/04/25/58c2f5b4-adf8-11e2-a986-eec837b1888b_blog.html
ReddestNeck Wrote: Apr 27, 2013 8:33 AM
And what's more why isn't Hillary herself rushing to make it right?

Crickets...
ReddestNeck Wrote: Apr 27, 2013 8:32 AM
And suppose everything you have said snidely is so... why is nobody at all taking a fall for this, even the underling that you are apparently insinuating put this out under Hillary's "signature"?
Chris3668 Wrote: Apr 27, 2013 7:54 AM
The fact is the public has no more information than right after the attack occurred. The administration has a perception to be in cover up mode on this issue, and threw Mrs. Clinton under the bus. If she authorized the email or cable, it is a matter of public record, and can be subpoenaed by Congress or a court. Also, when talking of sources, the Washington Post is not really known for it's objective reporting.

It’s clear from a reading of the interim report on Benghazi- and consultation with sources in the Intelligence Community (IC)- that policy and politics-- not intelligence failures-- led to the deaths of four Americans when Al Qaeda attacked the consulate in that Libyan city on September 11, 2012.

But we knew that already, didn’t we?

What we don’t know, still, is who in the administration is responsible for the alteration of key talking points generated by the IC in wake of the attack and who else knew about the alterations.  

The report authors, who work for...