Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The idea that armed extremists were involved in the attack has been present in every narrative I've heard.
I'd wager that militants do indeed drive around with RPG's mortars at their disposal. How long does a mortar take to set up if you're in a hurry and don't care as much about accuracy? I'm sure Jim can give us a good estimate.
-spence
|
It's certainly possible that if this started out as an anti-video protest, that hours later, it morphed into a military asault.
So the use of mortars, hours later, doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have started as a protest. However, from the testimony I have seen, it appears that there was very little reason to assume it started as a protest, and overwhelming reason to assume it was an assault.
In the Rose Garden the next morning, Obaba said terrorist acts would not be tolerated. Stands to reason he was talking about the Benghazi assault. That's why I van't understand why someone very high up, told Rice to go on TV day slater, and play the anti-video protest card.
If Obama called it what it clearly was, there is no way Republicans can allege cover-up. But the feds changed their story, Rice's comments on TV were baffling, as was Hilary's disgraceful performance at the hearings, when she claimed it didn't matter how it started. What she is saying is, don't hold this administration for the validity of what they say.
This was easily avoidable, but Obama/Hilary brought this onm themselves.