So…even CNN has decided the White House’s version on the Benghazi attack just doesn’t add up.
It seems CNN has played and re-played the info released by the White House and no matter how they examine the facts in the report, they have come to the conclusion that the White House has been trying to cover something up about the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in the terrorist attack.
Appearing on Meet the Press this past Sunday, David Plouffe was asked if “in retrospect, now that we know it was a terrorist attack” it was appropriate for President Obama to go to a fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day (Plouffe naturally concluded it was not inappropriate). That’s the problem though — there’s no “in retrospect.” According to almost anybody who doesn’t work for the White House or isn’t named “Susan Rice,” it was immediately known to be a terrorist attack. So why was the “mob scene caused by anger over a video” story pushed, and whose idea was it? As CNN reports above, not a single one of their sources have said there was a spontaneous mob scene in Benghazi that day. Did the administration not want to admit Al Qaeda involvement because it pokes holes big enough to fly Air Force One through in the campaign’s “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive” slogan while also making the president appear callous and disconnected for still going to a Vegas fundraiser the next day? Were they so anxious to push the “anger over the video” story that other possibilities weren’t considered? Sheer incompetence? Or is there much more to it than all this?
Read More at The Daily Beast: u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bombed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html