It's fair to say facts and evidence stopped being part of the smear campaign against Susan Rice a while ago, but it doesn't make this ABC report any less embarrassing.
Pop quiz: Who said this about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, shortly after it happened?
"The violence in Benghazi coincided with an attack on the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, which was also swarmed by an angry mob of protestors on September 11, 2012."
Was it U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice? No, it was the United States Senate.
In fact, the Senate passed a resolution on the attack in Benghazi the day after it happened, and it was updated 10 days later, co-sponsored by every member in the chamber. The resolution references "an angry mob of protestors," but makes no mention of "terrorists" or "al Qaeda."
Why is this important? Because for Rice's conservative critics, she deserves condemnation for saying what senators were saying, and using language similar, if not identical, to the Senate's own resolution. Perhaps Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Kelly Ayotte can explain why Rice reflecting the collective judgment of the intelligence community the week of the attack is outrageous, but the Senate's resolution is not?
On a related note, the Wall Street Journal reports today that the CIA omitted references to al Qaeda from the talking points -- not, as McCain has suggested, the White House, and NPR added that the initial draft "had a reference to al Qaeda but it was removed by the Central Intelligence Agency, to protect sources and protect investigations, before the talking points were shared with the White House."
In other words, the Republican criticism manage to look increasingly baseless by the day.