To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack - and a devastating one - would have ruined this picture.
The key question that remains unanswered to this day is: What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador's quarters?
If there is no evidence whatever, then the whole attempt to say that a protest over a video escalated into an attack was a deliberate hoax by people who knew better.
There is no point in the administration saying that they did not have all the facts about the attack immediately. All the facts may never be known.
The real question is: Did you have even a single fact that would substantiate your repeated claims that some video led to a protest in Benghazi that got out of hand and led to the attack?
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton was not featured in this campaign, even though as secretary of state she was a key figure.
Hillary was not about to create video footage that could come back to haunt her if she runs for president in 2016.
In a larger context, the Benghazi attack showed that you cannot unilaterally end the "war on terror" - or the terrorists' war on us - by declaring victory.
For years, the Bush administration's phrase "war on terror" was avoided like the plague by the Obama administration, even if that required the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as "workplace violence."
But no matter how clever the rhetoric, reality nevertheless rears its ugly head.
Once the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi is seen for what it was - a highly coordinated and highly successful operation by terrorists who were said to have been vanquished - it calls into question the Obama administration's Middle East foreign policy.
That is why it still matters.
Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. His website is www.tsowell.com.