Denial, as the saying goes, is a river in Egypt. But it seems to have spilled over into neighboring Libya in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi which killed four Americans and for which President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be held directly accountable. Testifying before Congress not long ago, Mrs. Clinton petulantly asked, "what difference does it make?" Perhaps she should just have quoted her husband and said the whole thing depends on the meaning of "is."

The administration clearly lied in and about the Benghazi talking points. Other than the increasingly ridiculous White House press spokesman, Jay Carney, hardly anyone denies that anymore. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton blame the CIA and have denied making any but minor changes in the originals though Jonathan Karl of ABC News (now there's a surprise!) has laid out book, chapter, and verse about how those talking points were thoroughly white-washed in a way that could not have been done without the direct knowledge of both Obama and Clinton. And screaming "witch hunt!" or "partisan politics!" will no longer serve to bludgeon the critics into silence. Fewer and fewer people, even in the usually compliant and complicit media, are falling for that.

Yes, even among Obama's own media flacks, the grumbling has become audible. Liberal stalwarts Bob Beckel and Maureen Dowd have admitted they were wrong in their earlier support for the administration on this. Liberal website "Politico" has pointedly noted the discrepancies between Obama's story and, well, the truth. Comedian Jon Stewart has started making fun of him. And CNN (once known as the Clinton News Network) has reported that the Benghazi attack indicates an increasing level of cooperation among various Middle Eastern Islamist groups; a direct refutation of Obama's absurd assertions that, with the death of Osama bin Ladin, the war on terror has been won.

That, Mrs. Clinton, in case you're still wondering, is what difference it makes! And if the generally left-wing media is finally beginning to report the story, even if it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, how much more is going to come out and how much harder will it be for Obama to hide?

It is clear that the administration badly bungled the security prior to the terrorist attack, twice ordered a possible rescue force to stand down (an order that could only have been given by the president), and then began a deliberate and ongoing campaign of deceit to cover up the bungling and lies. But, hey, they did manage to arrest the producer of an obscure anti-Muslim video and blame the whole thing on him.

Let us also remember that 24 hours after hearing about the attack, our esteemed leader flew to Las Vegas for a celebrity-studded fund raiser. Nice to know where his priorities were. Imagine if President Bush had done that 24 hours after the original 9/11. Of course, the Benghazi attack happened shortly before the 2012 election and could not be allowed to interfere with something as important as fund raising.

At best, what Obama and Clinton did in the weeks following this deliberate and planned terrorist attack constituted negligence of a very high order. Watergate was small potatoes compared to Benghazi. Nobody died at Watergate. And comparing Obama to Richard Nixon, as some now are doing, is an insult to Nixon.

Add in the revelations of IRS and EPA harassment of conservative groups and the "Justice" Department's seizure of Associated Press records (which even liberal Piers Morgan has called "bordering on tyrannical behavior"), and this administration's corruption and ineptitude become crystal clear. Its hypocrisy, moreover, is reminiscent of Captain Renault: "Rick, I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to find that gambling is going on in there." Alas, only the willfully blind could still be shocked by anything this administration does.