STILL MUCH ADO ABOUT ALMOST NOTHING

The NY Times May 10 story about Benghazi, "Benghazi E-Mails Put White House on the Defensive," seems to have missed the real points, which were buried toward the end of the story:

The disclosures about how extensively the talking points were revised also reveal the divisions that often exist among intelligence agencies, as well as the bureaucratic infighting that often lies behind the bland language in official government statements.

In this case, the State Department bridled at the C.I.A.’s initial draft, both because it went further than what the department had been disclosing publicly and because it was apparently worried that C.I.A. warnings about other potential threats would reflect badly on the department.

The Times also doesn't seem to get the difference between "made" and "proposed":

But in at least one briefing last fall, Mr. Carney said both the White House and the State Department collectively made just one change, in contradiction to the e-mails that show much more substantive revisions proposed by the State Department.

UPDATE: Glenn Kessler amplifies the bureaucratic infighting angle and tosses in a couple of facts I didn't know.