May 17, 2013 08:04 AM UTC

Benghazi Scandal Upended By Falsified Emails?

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

As CBS News reported last night, a story that could dramatically change the narrative of Republican attacks on the Obama administration over handling of the attack on a consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last September.

The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong… [Pols emphasis]

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from [deputy national security adviser Ben] Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

TPM's Josh Marshall comments on the journalistic significance of this:

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true.

In another example cited by CBS News, Republican sources appear to have added references to Al Qaeda that didn't previously exist. The changes in question, once compared to the original emails released yesterday, significantly worsen the relevant quotes in terms of implying the GOP's desired frame of a "cover-up."

If Republicans really altered these emails before releasing them to the press to make them fit their accusations, it would be an astonishing new low point for their credibility. To be honest, this seems like such a brazenly deceptive act–and risky, given the existence of the original emails–that we'd like to see some further investigation of the facts before we start tossing around accusations of our own too freely.

But needless to say, not a positive development for the old second-term scandal factory.