[UN Ambassador Susan] Rice’s account directly contradicts that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who said this weekend that he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya. “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf told CBS News.* [emphasis mine]
What an inefficient State Department to take weeks to figure out that unlike the Cairo event (which didn't result in American deaths) there was no corresponding demonstration. The administration avoided saying for a long time that it was a terrorist attack because of a supposed ongoing investigation. The Susan Rice narrative instead played out in people's imagination.How is it that instead of talking about terrorists invading American soil, the administration got everyone talking about a riot that started over a videotape? If it was acknowledged from the beginning that it was a concerted effort of terrorists, how did the idea take over that it was an angry mob that got out of control?
Could it be because Obama equivocated in his Rose Garden speech that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation"? That sounds like a warning. It follows a discussion of the events of 9/11/2001 and is general. The Benghazi events are referred to as "outrageous attack," "brutal acts," and "terrible act." but "acts [plural] of terror" is reserved for America's position on terror (the Obama Doctrine?).
Could this be the reason that the press did not hold this administration accountable when they subsequently avoided calling it a terrorist attack? Could it possibly? Or did the press simply forget that it had been called a terrorist attack?
