After a week of hesitation, the White House now says it is “self-evident” that a “terrorist attack,” and not just a spontaneous reaction from a furious mob, struck the US Consulate in Benghazi,Libya, last week.
Actually, it wasn’t “hesitation.” The White House insisted that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a protest that “spun out of control” — and sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto a number of Sunday talk shows last weekend to insist on it. They rolled out a false story even while the Libyan President said there was “no doubt” that the attack was premeditated and well organized.
Why did the Obama administration stick with the false story until it fell apart? The Christian Science Monitor answers that question in the following paragraphs:
The characterization is important, because it opens the door to the conclusion that the attack was a preplanned assault, resulting in the deaths of four US diplomats, including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.
The repercussions of declaring that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist assault on the United States would be extensive. For starters, it would raise questions about the Obama administration’s precautions in a volatile region and its preparedness for anti-US strikes in an area known to harbor Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist elements.
Read more at Hot Air. By Ed Morrissey.