"I'm going to leave it at that . . ."

. . . instead of answering your question, says Secy. Clinton.  Joseph Curl outlines the shape-shifting story of the Benghazi attack, strangely reminiscent of the more triumphant, but still shape-shifting, story of the bin Laden raid:

On the eve of a House oversight committee hearing, the State Department called a briefing for the media.  For an hour, over the telephone, top department officials spun a new tale that bore almost no resemblance to the official story they’d been telling for weeks. 

There was no protest, the officials said, no protest that grew out of hand until a spontaneous mob — whipped into a rage over a video — poured into the consulate. In fact, “nothing was out of the ordinary” on the night of the attack, one official said. . . . 

The FBI wouldn’t reach Benghazi for 17 days.  When bureau agents finally did, they took tapes from the closed-circuit security cameras.  More, reports emerged that an unmanned drone also captured the attack on video.  The story was changing fast, and just before administration officials were to testify officially before Congress.  The sudden respinning was reminiscent of the evolving story on the raid to get Osama bin Laden — first he had a gun, there was a firefight, he hid behind one of his wives; then, no gun, no firefight, no wife.

Well, screenplays do get re-written all the time, as we discover what the audience likes.   "The question is whether reporters will follow the trail of lies and deceit or leave off just as the whole mess is imploding," Curl suggests.  But actually, if you're the New York Times, the question is whether reporters will start down the trail in the first place.  As Mark Steyn noted:

Surely, even among Obama’s media sycophants, there must be someone who recognizes that all the cushy court eunuch posts are filled and, rather than being the umpteenth extra in the crowd scene, there’s a reputation, a Pulitzer and maybe a movie deal to be made here.