Clementine
Platinum Member
- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,826
- 350
If I had an Ambassador to Libya, he'd look like Chris Stevens
I feel so bad for the families, especially knowing that it could have been prevented. It just did not have to happen. It's one thing to be truly blind-sided, but another to have the writing on the wall go unread. The families deserve better and the people had a right to know that terrorists attacked us yet again. al Qaeda is still functioning way too well and spinning won't make them disappear.
Now the debate is whether Obama actually used the word terrorists. He didn't. An act of terror on the part of protesters has a completely different meaning. I suppose anyone can lose control and commit an act of terror, but in this case we are talking about real terrorists. Terrorists live to cause violence and kill. They are not protesters.
It's not like people are straining their brains trying to recall a single statement over a month ago. We have no trouble remembering the stance the administration took because we heard it over and over for nearly a month. Most statements from the WH centered around the video and that was condemned far more than the 'act of terror.' Never were the terms 'terrorists' , 'planned attack' or 'al Qaeda' used. Big difference, even if we concede that Obama used the word terror. That word alone doesn't begin to describe this. And when the focus of the WH and many in the media was on protesters reacting to a video, it paints a much different picture than a planned al Qaeda attack on the 9/11 anniversary.
I am not splitting hairs here. We have two completely different scenarios. Unfortunately, we were given the wrong one repeatedly.
The question that has yet to be answered, and maybe never will be, is where the story about the protesters and the video came from. The State Dept. already stated they had never concluded that. The administration put that story forth. Now they say there is more investigating that needs to be done. Why would they go to the media with the protester story when the investigation had yet to reveal the details? That story was clearly invented and we have a right to know why.
We can't drop this just because Obama may have used the word terror and Hillary took responsibility for the security issues. Of course, now the buck has been passed yet again to a British Security firm. Where it will stop, no one knows.
But, after the security fail and before the facts showed that it was a planned al Qaeda attack, there were weeks of a false story being repeated constantly. That is where an explanation is needed. I believe there is an attempt to sweep that under the rug and I hope people don't let them get away with that.