In the first 48 hours after the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Libya, senior Obama administration officials strongly alluded to a terrorist assault and repeatedly declined to link it to an anti-Muslim video that drew protests elsewhere in the region, transcripts of briefings show.
The administration’s initial accounts, however, changed dramatically in the following days, according to a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements, with a new narrative emerging Sept. 16 when U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice asserted in a series of TV appearances that the best information available indicated that the attack had spun off from a protest over the video.
What prompted that pivot remains a mystery amid a closely contested presidential election and Republican allegations that President Barack Obama intentionally used outrage over the video to mask administration policy missteps that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. The issue is sure to arise when Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney meet Monday to debate foreign policy.”
Heck, my long dead grandmother would have known this was a terrorist attack. I mean, “Hey O’mar meet me at the protest over that infidel video and bring the RPG”, really?
So the only plausible reasons at this point is that they knew they got punked because 1) They had pulled back security, ignoring repeated requests – including some from Amb. Stevens – for more security. 2) Calling it a terrorist attack would lead to congressional inquiries which might just reveal what Stevens and the other were doing that night at a CIA sub-station at Benghazi, ie; attempting to recover weapons the US supplied by then fell into the hands of terrorist.
All in all, a complete and good old fashion coverup at the expense of four Americans.
The Commander in Chief at Work!
Most Popular Posts