They did screw up with the Benghazi attack, though. I don’t know what the hell they were thinking. Who ever came up with that move will be responsible for Obama losing the election.
There is a single word which has become lost in all this speculation about the state department’s speculation about what happened that fateful day.
I clearly heard the spokesperson say “We “think” it this is what happened, etc.
This was not a statement of fact but an initial assessment during a time of chaos and multiple events happening in Syria. It is no mystery ithat terrorist try to seek out a “soft” target during a time of otherwise spontaneos unrest. An embassy is not a military base, it is a civilian installation to promote communication between countries.
The Lybian government condemned the attacks and there is no indication that it was involved in any of this.
Some undeniable facts,
a) there were protests around the country against that video. It would seem odd that Bengahzi was steeped in traquility that day.
b) There was an attack by armed people, which cannot be identified either way as civilians or para-military (terrorists).
On that particular day it is wholly understandable that these two event would be intuitively linked, but it was made clear that information was stil sketchy and that these were just initial assessments.
But of course it is so convenient to just ignore that little qualifier “think”. By removing that word the statement becomes a statement of fact. But it was there in the original statement.
Then to blame Obama for all of this is just ridiculous. It is impossible to have fortress embassies around the world, when you are trying to project friendship and cooperation.
It is so easy to point the finger, and unpatriotic to even engage in devisive commentary during a time of deep sorrow. “Unpatriotic” is a term coined by Bush after the 9/11 attack, when anyone dared to propose government negligence.