"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" ~ Secretary ClintonAt this point... at this point? Now that the Americans have been dead for months? Now that we're finally in a position to get answers? Now that the election is over and it's too late for the truth to matter? Hillary says, "I did not say ... that it was about the video for Libya." But with the father of the slain Navy SEAL: "[s]he mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video." Yep, we'll bring the responsible person to justice.
The emergency security force dispatched as reinforcements were held up at the Libyan airport for hours. I don't think the memorial service for Tyrone Woods (where Hillary told his father that they'd nab the maker of the video) took place the very next day. But: "Within 24 hours of the attack taking place, Washington was informed by a variety of intelligence sources that the attack had indeed been pre-planned and was undoubtedly the work of al-Qaeda which, apart from attacking the consulate, had also attacked the CIA's safe house in Benghazi."
And the State Dept. supposedly had a live feed to the events (though neither Barack nor HiIlary say the seven-hour siege in real time); the surveillance record of which did not show any demonstration. Not to mention, Obama following up with his "blaspheme the prophet" speech. If a video wasn't to blame, what the hell does it matter whether some hack doesn't give the Prophet (may he be blessed) his due respect?
The Washington Post put together this handy timeline on the characterization. Is it a shocker that the British press wondered why the administration was so sure at the start that it was because of a video ("leading everyone to believe the murders were not part of an al-Qaeda plot, but the result of an outbreak of violence caused by a blaphemous film clip") when later(?) intelligence explicitly implied that was not the case? They jumped on that narrative faster than CNN jumped on the bogus unemployment number the day after the first Presidential debate.
Come to think of it though, it was just the British press that seemed surprised to find weeks later that Obama's warning that we wouldn't tolerate acts of terror actually meant that the "demonstration out of hand" was unequivocal terrorism. ABC reported weeks later:
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed today that the president believes the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a “terrorist attack,” a term Obama has not yet used in his characterization of the violence.Of course, as the usual suspects all pointed fingers in different directions (Obama, Clinton, Rice, military, CIA) the claim up to the election was that the story never changed. As I've noted before, Democrats and Leftists celebrated the success of the PR stunt of 2012: Obama goads Romney into the expected question about Benghazi; Obama not only seems confident that Crowley is prepared for this, but prompts her; she tries to cover her butt after giving the answer that is expected of her, but Michelle Obama breaks and initiates the round of applause that is supposed to happen; the debate changes subject. Couldn't have worked out better if it had been planned. <narrows eyes> Wow, Obama sure showed that Romney fella.
Personally, aside from the admittedly large numbers of people that would fall for such an obvious stunt, there are at least as many that adore Obama so much that they were simply too willing to fall for bad courtroom theater.
within 24 hours the White house knew that it was a premeditated attack by al Qaeda affiliated terror network, the very attack that the White House had been warned was threatened to take place. That's funny though. I don't remember hearing about al Qaeda or a premeditated attack; just a lot of rhetoric about respecting Muslim beliefs so that exercising our First Amendment rights wouldn't get people killed overseas. I remember hearing a LOT about that. But you'd think that a pre-meditated attack by a terrorist network would be big news, especially while Obama was stumping across the country that he had awesomely nipped al Qaeda in the bud.
As Thomas Sowell predicted back then, the marks were successfully cooled out by the con men. The important thing was making sure that no outrage would foment that could build momentum into November. The rest is just more posturing. Rice apparently thought that going on 5 talk shows with the White House version of events would win her a big promotion. Well, Rice, you're not the only American that didn't get their wish fulfilled by Bronco Bama.
Since the election, how much have we learned about how this administration may have armed the terrorists? How much have we heard about the revealing emails showing the real time briefing about what caused the attack and who was claiming credit for it? Not much.
And don't expect to learn much from Madame Secretary. She's putting on the performance of a lifetime.