And for all the apologists and funny guys out there:
The difference, at this point (and at that one) that it makes is, there never was a protest.
So how does this non-event become the story of record that the WH went with a full five days later?
In November Carney claimed (in reference to the numerous changes and revisions made to the "official report" they were going to release) they made a "single change", "changing the word Consulate to Diplomatic Facility"
This is known to be false, and that they removed any reference to previous warnings about security threats and the fact that they were pretty certain Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Yet as recently as Friday, Carney doubled down on it, calling it one "stylistic change", which again is already known to be false.
In fact, Victoria Nuland specifically said (concerning the al-Qaeda references) "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"
In light of the latest two scandals, it appears to show a pattern of dishonesty and at the very least ineptness of the CIC to have any idea what is going on.