During both Clinton and Bush it was admitted right up front they were terror attacks. This one wasn't. This one was known by one and all that it was a terrorist attack, yet an attempt was made to kept that from the American people. In something like this, honesty is always the best policy. If the present administration had came right out and said Benghazi was a terrorist attack, none of what is happening now would be happening, even in today's highly partisan atmosphere.
I know you don't want to hear this, but a spontaneous attack does not preclude a terrorist attack.
Yes, the administration initially asserted that that the spontaneous attack was precipitated by the video, and that is almost certainly wrong, or at least there is no evidence that it is is right, but there seems to be this bifurcation between the initial characterization of who did the attacking and terrorists.
If Osama bin Laden had walked into a bar to have a goats milk White Russian and saw a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of him and pulled a pistol and shot ten people, would that be a terrorist attack or a spontaneous reaction to a video?
I'm not saying the characterization was right, or even that it was not politically motivated, but I guess what am saying is what difference, after all, does it make?
I would probably agree with you if the administration had someone managed to tightly wrap this up until after the election, but we knew all of this within days of the attack. It was debated in the debates!
Or is the idea that it even went in this direction for any period of time, even if it really was just in the immediate aftermath when there probably were people who actually and honestly thought the video was a factor?
I guess I am more upset by political gamesmanship (okay, lying) when it is a long drawn out act of obfuscation than when the early facts are inaccurate, intentionally, or not.
Do you remember Tora Bora?
I am not bringing this as "Bush did it" thing, more like a "this is what political government is" thing.
The whole Bush Administration came out to the Sunday talk circuits and said variations of UBL wasn't there. Singing from the same hymnal, Bush, Vice President Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks have all insisted: "We didn't know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora." He was they knew it, the CIA confirmed it, but it was politically expedient to say he wasn't there because the alternative was admitting we had him cornered and screwed it up.
We never got all that mad about that because the denials persisted all the way past the 2004 election and when we learned the facts were unequivocal at the time, it was old news.
But we knew the essential facts of Benghazi within days and the WH did not deny them.
Sure, dig deep enough and there is some level of obfuscation, but seriously, the focus on the characterization that lasted a few days is just ridiculous and I know why the party faithful are hitting this dead horse with the paddles, but I am surprised you are buying any of it.