posted at 11/16/2012 9:26 PM EST
In response to jmel's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
I keep proving it time and again ...
The source says there were some 20 different intelligence reports indicating the Cairo film might be responsible. The CIA eventually disapproved all those reports, but not until after PetraeusâÂÂ initial briefings to Congress in which he discussed all possibilities, the source said. âÂÂAll those other reports got disproved over time,âÂÂ the source says Petraeus told him.
20 different intelligence reports! That's a heck of a lot better than a facebook posting and three emails. How are you avoiding this reality? Do you think this story is false, or do you discount 20 different intelligence reports blaming the video?
Really? Are you serious? You seem to be very intelligent. Look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly.........Was this a terrorist attack? Was this calculated and coordinated? Was it al Qaeda?How would it be if America found out that we were attacked by al Qaeda on Sept.11th (when we should be on high alert) and the administration is so freakin incompetent that they fv...cked it up? What would happen if America found out that 4 Americans were dead on Sept 11th and it wasn`t a flash mob reacting to a youtube video?
C`mon..........you`re smarter than this. The election is over. He won. All the DUMB fools voted for him and they don`t even know what Benghazi is. You can admit it..........
Here's my answers, as I see them..
1) This meets my definition of a terrorist act, but I wouldn't call Ansar al Sharia a terrorist organization. I think it is (was) more of a group of Libyan militants with easy access to RPGs who are always looking for an excuse to attack something. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea the Ambassador was even at the consulate.
2) I think this attack was planned in a matter of hours - probably as a result of the violent protests in Cairo.
3) It was not Al Qaeda - some of the attackers may have had ties to Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. But it had more to do with Cairo (yes, and the video) than it did bin Laden or the original 9/11.
4) If the narrative had been that we were attacked on 9/11 as revenge for bin Laden, or something to that affect - I don't think it would have made any difference in the election. It might have even helped Obama - if this had been a calculated, co-ordinated attack, planned for weeks or months, and the best they could do is kill 4 Americans in the most violent place on earth, 5,000 miles from US soil; that might have actually illustrated how weak they had become. No modern president has escaped without some sort of terrorist attack on their watch - Benghazi is nothing compared to 9/11, the '98 embassy bombings, Beirut, Iran hostage crisis, etc, etc.
Now my question for you is what would you accept as evidence that there was no coverup? You won't take 20 intelligence reports implicating the video - is there anything that would make you stop and re-think your position?