Replies

In all of this, we must not forget that on the same day - 9/11 - in Cairo, there were demonstrations which the Obama Administration's Embassy immediately blamed on criticisms of a religion, although, as the following post points out, there were indications during the event by the participants in that event that demonstrators were responding directly to America and its leader (see below).

There is an article today lauding David Gregory for criticizing the Administration's response to Benghazi. His describing it as "sluggish, sloppy, and incoherent" simply plays into the previous "progressive" narrative about Obama's first debate performance and, in many ways, avoids the deliberate avoidance of condemnation of the underlying reasons for presidential lying, coverup, and perpetuation of a myth from the very beginning of what amounted to an act of war against America.

Had this attack occurred during the watch of a Republican President, Gregory and his network colleagues would be all over the facts of inadequate security, loss of lives, and same-day reactions which were, on their very face, dishonest and did not fit the facts Americans were seeing on television from both Cairo and Benghazi.

Gregory deserves no credit for this belated attempt to excuse the Administration's actions as simply "sluggish, sloppy, and incoherent."

Where were they on 9/11 when, after a days-before DNC Convention where both the VP and President, in high-fiving for a domestic audience of potential voters, used words and phrases which wise and judicious leaders might have perceived as being potentially provocative for enemies in the Middle East, then immediately acted to attribute the Cairo demonstrations on 9/11 to an obscure film few had seen until they gave it PR and promotion which may have exacerbated the problem?

A review of FOX's first reports on Cairo included reports of individuals chanting, "Obama, Obama, we're all Osama," and taking down the American flag, replacing it with their own flag, and then continuing their verbal attacks on the name of the President and America. Where was Gregory when the question might have been asked, "What may have attracted such a direct attack on the American President, when, only hours later, they were burning likenesses in effigy?"

Of course, the Cairo Embassy reaction was summarized in the following article posted on FR on that day:

"An Appalling Statement from the President" - Townhall.com | September 11, 2012 | Carol Platt Liebau

Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:08:55 PM by Kaslin

"On 9/11, a day devoted to remembering those killed at the hands of Islamofascist terrorists -- and this year, a day when a mob in Egypt attacks the US embassy and replaces the American flag with the Al Qaeda one -- here is the Obama administration's statement in full:
'The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.'"

The above statement is the reaction Mitt Romney responded to initially, and for which he received such MSM and Dem indignation.

Why is no one questioning whether this entire coverup might have begun as a result of an unwillingness to accept any responsibility for Cairo and a determination to disassociate the messages of that crowd from the previous week's words and boasts? All of which was made worse when the Benghazi attack transpired.

Great post as always. After the last debate, Sen. Lindsay Graham was on a talk show lambasting the Administration's handling of the Benghazi situation. I'm sure the moderator and the viewers for the most part thought, 'yep, that's just a Republican politician jumping on the bandwagon to go after Obama.'

But Graham's demeanor was unusually aggressive and his words were very sharp especially on the issue of failing to respond to the Ambassador's pleas for beefed up security. Based on the discussion, Graham knows a lot about those days in Libya before and after the 9/11 attack, much more than any run of the mill Congressman.

Just wondering if he and Stevens were more than strangers passing in the night? Wouldn't be surprised if many in the closet with Stevens are ready to speak out.