Jay Carney seems to have forgotten the meaning of the word 'edit.'
Friday's revelation that the Obama Administration's talking points on Benghazi were revised a dozen times adds another reason not to trust the official story line. It also gives Congress new cause to keep digging.
Jonathan Karl of ABC News disclosed that the talking points evolved over time to exclude references to terrorists who might have participated in the attacks that killed four Americans last September in Libya. The first iteration on Friday September 14 prepared by the CIA said that "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."
After the twelfth edit a day later, the report merely said that "there are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." This change had the effect of underplaying potential terror involvement and made it easier for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to pitch the line that the attacks resulted from reaction to a YouTube video.
Mr. Karl also reported that the editing included substantial input from the State Department and others in government. This certainly contradicts the assurance from White House spokesman Jay Carney on November 28, 2012 that, "Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened."
Mr. Carney added that, "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, of these two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."
Strangely, Mr. Carney is sticking with that story, claiming now that everyone knows that talking points always get routine interagency scrutiny and editing. A former journalist, Mr. Carney may have been in politics so long that he has forgotten when public officials begin to sound ridiculous.
The upshot is that the Benghazi story has new legs, despite the best efforts of White House allies in the media to dismiss it. House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers said on Fox News Sunday that more "whistleblowers" with knowledge of what happened may come forward.
One issue worth more examination is which U.S. and NATO military assets were available in the region to respond to the attack, and why they didn't. The White House and Pentagon insist there was nothing within range that would have made a difference, but we also know that military officers respond to the political tone that civilian officials set at the top.
Did the well-known White House desire to retreat from Libya influence the ability and willingness of military officials to respond in real time? The lives of Americans around the world could hang on the answer.
A version of this article appeared May 13, 2013, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Benghazi Disinformation Points.
