In Washington, DC, it is said, the cover up is always worse than the offense. I'm sure that is true about the Benghazi screw-up, too. What do I mean? Let me tell you.
Presidents become loyal to their loyal subordinates, perhaps they must. Hence they get involved in helping to cover up those subordinates' errors, committed on the boss's behalf. They shouldn't, but they do. Nixon did.
It is likely that the decision to let Ambassador Chris Stevens and three associates hang out there in the wind unprotected, and as a result be murdered, wasn't made by the President. "Likely," but not certain.
On the other hand, when the final chips fall, I'll bet we learn that at some point the President was involved in discussions about how to cover up that screw-up. In other words, he didn't decide to do the wrong thing, but was involved in deciding to attempt a cover-up of the screwed-up cover up.
In the Benghazi situation, perhaps President Obama wasn't involved in the initial cover up, which was writing the talking points. It is likely he became involved in subsequent efforts to cover up the failed first cover up - the talking points.
That all gets fairly convoluted, I hope you followed it. Oh, what tangled webs we weave ....
