CBS reports that a source says that the Benghazi talking points were changed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, without the knowledge of the White House.

Let me stipulate a few things. The first is that I have come to believe we’ll never learn the truth about Benghazi; the combination of this administration and the completely complicit MSM is almost overwhelming. The second is that even if we were to learn the truth, the majority of Americans either would not be paying attention, or wouldn’t much care about it even if they were. The third is that, even if this CBS report is the truth, it would indicate a remarkable degree of incompetence on the part of the Obama administration—for not being more involved in the information that was given the public; and/or for not correcting the story much, much earlier rather than doubling down on the stupid and transparently incorrect “it’s the video” narrative.

And that’s not just hindsight about the video versus terrorists. The terrorist link was clear from the start, as I wrote here. What’s more, who bears the responsibility for misinforming the American public on Benghazi is just one small part of the big picture of the Benghazi debacle, which also features incredibly poor security preparation prior to the attack, ignoring staff requests for more security, and an inadequate response during the attack, as well as the subsequent coverup that has been the more recent focus.

Many of us on the right think that Benghazi is a scandal with issues that make it at least potentially far more important than Clinton and Lewinsky and even than Watergate. I agree. But I’ve already said I don’t think it will ever get much traction with the public because of the audacity of the Obama administration and the cooperation of the press.

So, what was so different with Monicagate and Watergate? Note that one featured a Republican (Nixon) and one a Democrat (Clinton), the first a man who was hated by the MSM and the second a man who was loved. Both scandals had long introductory periods of moderately successful coverup (despite the intrinsic interest generated by the sexual nature of the Clinton scandal), but then both exploded and the public became convinced they were serious controversies. The difference between then and now is that both featured smoking guns that forced people to pay attention: for Nixon it was the existence of the tapes themselves, and then the so-called “smoking gun” tape that seemed to implicate the president directly in the coverup and obstruction of justice, and for Clinton the famous semen-stained blue dress that proved once and for all that he had had some sort of sexual relations with “that woman.”

I submit that, but for each of those things, those scandals might never have reached critical mass. Clinton’s denials would have held—and Nixon’s probably would have as well, despite the fact that he lacked press support. Remember also that what did Nixon in and convinced him to resign was the fact that his fellow Republicans deserted him, informing him that they would probably impeach and vote to convict. For Clinton, what ever could be more of a smoking gun (smoking hot) than the dress Linda Tripp had convinced Lewinsky to save, which was finally turned over to investigators, providing proof positive of his affair?

Nixon resigned because Republicans deserted him, but the Democrats never deserted Clinton. Therein lies the difference between the two outcomes, and the reason Clinton was able to weather the storm of his impeachment.

So, back to Benghanzi. What smoking gun could ever be uncovered? A memo with Obama’s name on it saying “Hey, let’s do a coverup and lie to the American people to protect ourselves?” He’s nowhere near that stupid. Obama will let subordinates take the fall; it almost doesn’t matter which ones, but he has plenty who would look good under that bus. And I doubt there are any smoking gun tapes, or any tapes at all.

By the way: are there any White House tapes? No one’s ever asked, although it would be an interesting question. I doubt the answer would be “yes.”

What’s more, Democrats would never turn on Obama, even if there was a literal smoking gun and it was discovered that Obama murdered the ambassador himself. Yes, I know he didn’t (that’s for the trolls among you), but just try to imagine what sort of offense would be enough to get the Senate to vote to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. Difficult, isn’t it?