Benghazi - now it's Clapper's fault?

Saw on the news that James Clapper has stepped up and said that his office made the change to the original intelligence report on Benghazi - changing the description from a terrorist attack to a spontaneous response to a movie trailer.  Consider this to be extremely unlikely.  Have trouble believing that an intelligence office would intentionally put out faulty information just to get the President reelected.  However, if this is actually what happened, this would be an incredible indictment of Barack Obama, for it is the President who sets the tone of the administration - establishes the goals, the priorities, the climate, and the agenda that become the marching orders for the entire executive branch.  For him to have set our nation's intelligence office's number one priority to be supporting his reelection campaign - rather than to disseminate valid intelligence information is deplorable at best.

Have been thinking about the similarities between Watergate and Benghazigate: Nixon's coverup that eventually forced him to resign, and Obama's politically expedient decision where he not only failed to provide the additional security forces needed to protect our consulate, but actually withdrew security forces that were already on hand. NOTE: A need for enhanced security forces didn't mesh with Obama's "Arab Spring", and Al qaeda is on the run - the "warm and fuzzy" picture of foreign affairs that best suited President Obama's reelection plans.

Obama's indecisiveness (or indifference?) during the seven hours when our people still might have been saved, and his cover-up of his administrations actions, seems to be far worse than anything that happened during Watergate. True, the cover-up part of both scandals is quite similar, but Benghazigate ended up leading to something far worse - the deaths of four American citizens. After all, it was the security decisions that were made based on political advantage (getting reelected) - rather than analysis of security needs that helped create the crisis situation, and it was the failure to provide military aid during the critical seven hours that inevitably sealed the fate of the four Americans.

Not one portion of the ever changing Obama Administrtion's Benghazi storyline rings true. Initial statements made by President Obama, General Petraeus, Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton all professed the"spontaneous response to a movie trailer falsehood - even though now some of them are saying that that is not what they really said (i.e., that they were misunderstood).  You can ignore that "misunderstood" claim, for, if they had actually been initially "misunderstood", they would have immediately gone to the press and corrected this "miunderstanding".  Since no such press statements were made until approximately two weeks after the assault on the consulate, the obvious assumption is that they wanted the original interpretation to stand.

Just a few days ago President Obama said that instead of making dispaaging comments against Ambassador Rice -  “If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me".  While I think that the deceit/incompetence evidenced by General Petaeus, Ambassador Rice, Secreatary Clinton, and now James Clapper are all fireable offenses, agree with the President that we should really "go after him".   Feel that President Obama's actions and job performance before, duing and after the attack rise to the level of being an impeachable offense.

Comment:  Actually though, do not think President Obama will ever be impeached for his handling . Reasons: a) The press is too heavily invested in the first black President to do anything but protect him at all costs. b: Democrats, who typically adhere to the old "ends justify the means" philosophy, will not vote against the President no matter how bad Benghazigate turns out to be - and it's plenty bad enough already.