I definitely think the Admin. handled this poorly but this seems like a real stretch to say this is a coverup.
I find this whole thing ridiculous the attack happened because of that video. Rodney king riots happened bc of a video which were regular citizens rioting but also criminals who seized an opportunity to do a criminal act. So why is it hard to believe religious muslims rioting that terrorist found a opportunity to commit a terrorist act.
Did you read the second article in particular? More than a hundred people were involved in this "spontaneous" attacks-- including spotters who had helped calibrate the mortar fire and then adjust it as needed once the attack had commenced. This was not just throwing bricks through windows and setting cars on fire....
I haven't seen this question answered, so would like to bump it. It seems crucial, if one seeks to support a cover-up narrative.
Golly. Ridiculous, really? The WH parsed the story to throw out the one that was most defensible and then hoped it were true. That was a gamble that backfired it would seem.
"If something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity." -Romney on duplicating the republican political success of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Kinda morbid to use such tragedy as opportunity AS IT'S HAPPENING IN REAL TIME. We can't forget that Romney released a statement 18 MINUTES after the first preliminary details started coming out: 10:08pm night of the attack from H. Clinton: "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack." 10:10pm night of the attack from POTUS: The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government. 10:24pm night of the attack from Romney: I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. 12:09am night of the Attack from POTUS: We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America isconfronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack. Romney supporters can b**** all they want about who used the word terrorism first, but the record still shows Romney acting very unpresidential on the night it went down.
Yes, really. No they didn't. The admin consistently relayed the information they had from their intelligence agencies, and consistently relayed that it was early and that they were still gathering information. If you chose to ignore the latter part in your own rush to judgment, that's on you rather than the administratin.
They denied or ignored the terror links that were in their hot little hands by the second hour.... My "rush to judgment" is weeks after the fact.
We all know and expect there to be confusion and conflicting reports. The problem is that the White House politicized the event in their re-election effort... and they turned out to be wrong it would appear.
Hahahahaha. Did you read what the CIA said? They believed it was a result of the video protests. The White house repeated what the CIA believed. That doesn't equal a cover up. Those are facts, giddy. You can ignore them all you want, but it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean you have a valid argument.
Though they don't want to admit it, there is a reason that after harping on Libya for nearly a month, the entire campaign shut up about the issue on Saturday (when the CIA information came out), and didn't even try to mention it in Monday's debate.
Glad to see you agree that the President had said it was a situation that needed to be investigated which shows this wasn't a coverup.
According to giddy, and Tal the White House should not have listened to the CIA, but instead of relied solely on a tweet to find out what happened. CIA reports should not be considered as strongly as a tweet.
How does one quote what has been ignored? What was ignored was the suggestion by SEPT 12 that there was significant terrorist involvement. Susan Rice went on five major Sunday news shows on SEPT 16 and said this: "RICE: [O]ur current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there. We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present." No one more harmful than an extremist. A small number of people (sounds like 6 or 8 not hundreds! All this over a video with some 300 views in 3 months....
By couching it as a response to a movie rather than an act of terror on their watch on the anniversary of 9/11 they politicized it to distance Obama from the event.
