Thursday, May 08, 2014

Benghazi terror attack and/or movie review

Here's Rich Lowry with "The Benghazi deniers"
The administration’s apologists claim that President Obama immediately called Benghazi a terror attack in a statement in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the assault. He did indeed refer to “acts of terror,” although vaguely. In an interview the same day with CBS, he was asked: Was Benghazi the result of a “mob action,” or was it something more serious? “I don’t want to jump the gun on this,” the president said.
He obviously wouldn’t have said he didn’t want to jump the gun if he had already jumped it. Besides, if the president of the United States was willing to say it was a terrorist attack from the very beginning, why was one of his national security officials stuffing his ambassador to the United Nations with pablum in an email just a few days later?
Blaming the video allowed the administration to put the most anodyne possible interpretation on Benghazi, while staying in its ideological comfort zone.
Candy Crowley just called to say: "Mm-hmm, that's how I remember it."

Extra - Daily Beast: "Why Democrats are so afraid of Benghazi."  As several have noted, if they didn't bury the Ben Rhodes memo, this would have long-since passed.

More - Reason Online: "The last thing his campaign managers wanted to confront in the middle of September was an al-Qaida-orchestrated attack on American property in the Middle East in which our ambassador was murdered."

3 comments:

Taking action on the Hill said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

$o my$teriou$ said...

Hmm, what'$ the rea$on behind thi$ late$t con$ervative $earch for ju$tice?

siacd999 said...

It's ok for liberals to defend anti-Islamic free speech when there's a Republican in the White House, but it's not ok for liberals to defend anti-Islamic free speech when there's a Democrat in the White House.