Post-election GOP making mountains from molehills

The Odd Case Against Susan Rice 

By Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic

Erika Johnsen over at Hot Air is not buying Susan Rice's explanation:

She relied "solely and squarely" on info from the intelligence community? That seems a bit odd, considering that the intelligence community suspected terrorism from the very beginning, which means that something doesn't fit here -- and the most obvious possibility for that missing link is that somebody high up in the food chain tweaked the talking points on a very inconvenient situation with only weeks to go before a close presidential election, although the White House has denied having done so.

The post goes on to allege that Rice was part of a "cover-up." Johnsen's factual rebuttal to Rice is linked in an NBC news story headlined, "Intelligence Officials: We knew attack in Benghazi was terrorist attack from the beginning." The piece is presented as though it contradicts Susan Rice's claim that she was following her talking points. But that isn't what the story actually says:

Officials said that although there was no question that the attack was terrorism, they did not know whether they were spontaneous or planned long in advance. They also did not have the suspects' identities. That's why, they said, they kept their unclassified talking points for Rice vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings.

(More here.)