wrestlervic saidI still can't figure out why this is such a big deal; whether it was based on protests or a random act. And who's to say that the militants weren't provoked to do what they did based on the ongoing protests? This whole inquiry seems so irrelevant.
Well I will try to explain it.
It would have be different if David Axelrod went on 5 Sunday shows after a September 11th the sequel attack .
However it was Susan Rice who is the UN Ambassador . This is a apolitical post within the State Department.
So how or why did a apolitical officer come up with such a politically favorably story ? At the time and to this day Obama has been saying that terrorism is coming to an end. During a campaign it surely would not have been favorable at the time for there to be a September 11th anniversary attack. So the questions is asked who came up with the narrative this was a spontaneous protest in Benghazi, when on the ground it was known that there were real threats of terrorism.
So we have the unanswered requests from the Libyan ambassador, and the perceived political cover story by Susan Rice.
I would point out the quote from the Clarence Thomas hearings. Its not the nature of the evidence its the SERIOUSNESS of the charge that matters.
The charge of a national coverup over a terrorist attack is serious enough to have vetted in the public.
Personally I think Rice had little to do with her 5 show appearance. Plenty of media monitor the State Department briefings. This was a narrative someone crafted, orchestrated and mobilized. Unfortunately for her she is left with the political hot potato of Benghazi. There is NO way she would be confirmed to Sec of State, a apolitical job after so many unanswered questions.
I am not surprised about how little the media has done to investigate being spoon-fed a false narrative. Dan Rather was complicit in 2004 with Rathergate.
Within hours many on the internet debunked the story, but CBS an other media outlets stood by it for weeks. When an election is at stake anything goes.