I think the time-line is pretty clear. This is from USA Today. USA Today is not some right-wing paper.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ttack/1624733/

Watch the hearing and make up your own mind. Stop being told what to think. That "timeline" has been published elsewhere two days ago, and is incomplete.

Sept. 16:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."

President of Libya's general National Congress Mohammed Magarief contradicts the Obama administration, saying there is "no doubt that this (attack) was pre-planned, predetermined."

Sept. 18:

Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."

Sept. 20:

Carney, when asked about Olsen's testimony, says it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack.

In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says.

Oct. 10:

Senior State Department officials admit in a background briefing with reporters that prior to the attack in Benghazi there was no protest outside the compound. The briefing contradicts initial White House statements that the attack came during a demonstration against the anti-Islam video that got out of control outside the consulate.

Deeper and deeper they dig. These liars have no shame.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ghazi_security

Why don't you quote what was said in the time period prior to this? Doesn't fit your narrative, huh? ;)

The Ambassador went to Benghazi to pull them out of the consulate and back to the embassy - nobody talks about that. There wasn't enough security to defend a major attack (nor is there normally). The consult didn't meet normal "defense" criteria for the structure/grounds. Darryl Issa's witch hunt Republican hearings improperly revealed state secrets, that the "annex" was actually a CIA operation. The Ambassador didn't want more personal security and felt safe in Libya. Libyans helped defend the Ambassador and the compound and were overrun. The Republicans blocked funding for more security.

Geeshus - let it fu.cking be what it is, and not right wing made-up political crap.

I now suspect the motive for this administration's bizarre handling of the four murders is what I originally dismissed. Obama just doesn't give a shiat.

Merely a bump in the road, nothing to talk about here, move along folks. The treatment of one of the victim's mothers, interviewed by Anderson Cooper, speaks volumes about this fake Commander in Chief.

Yea he killed Bin Laden just like the guy holding the winning lotto ticket will hand it in. Such a huge accomplishment!

It gets even more sick.

These people have no shame! Wake up!

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/26...omney-and-ryan

Now it's the GOP's fault for cutting funding? LMAO

Guess those two chevy volts at $150K (Government always pays triple) ordered for the embassy in Vienna were more important than security at a consulate.

It was the movie I tell ya!

Sen. Lieberman now calling for a senate investigation.

Administration lying to the mother of Sean Smith.

That's all the GOP's fault as well.

3 more weeks!

Summation of the 'scandal'

So, have any of the screaming monkeys of the right wing, like Faux, trying to inflame nothing into something, yet noticed what everyone else has - that the day after this happened, the President talked about it being terrorism?

No, huh?

Just ignoring that part of reality in search of a good conspiracy theory?

A week after it happened, Obama was on the Late Show blaming it on the video.

No he did not. He blamed it on "extremists and terrorists".

Here's the video link to that portion of the show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...WSrl9eqMk&NR=1

Obama mentioned the offensive video, that it caused offense in much of the Muslim world.

But then he said, and I quote, "But what also happened was that extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya."

Like he said in the first press conference the day after it happened (which the RW ignores), where he called it "terrorism".

The above quote, from USA Today, is a selectively edited lie. Because the very next sentence, which USA Today must have purposely left out, changes the meaning 100%, as it was the president attributing the attack, not to mobs due to the video, but terrorists and extremists:
,
"But what also happened was that extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya."

That still is not correct. The terrorists didn't use the video as an excuse to attack. This attack had been planned for a long time. It was the anniversary of 9/11. The video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.

:tro:

There was NO PROTEST at all at the consulate.

Now they're trying to deflect it to Hillary and the lack of security ignoring the fact it took Obama several weeks to recognize it as a planned terror attack. Even in front of the UN he blamed the video.

Re-writing history at its best. It's the GOP and Fox's fault. :wf

......those cockroaches have no idea about "the video" pathetic.

:zz: He didn't say they used the video as an excuse to attack. The inference - if you listen to it - is that the mobs were the excuse to attack.

Geeshus - the President said the next day it was "terrorists". He said, above, "it was terrorists".

I'm tired of the outright lies about this president (not you, Rupert, but like the USA Today quote, the RWNJ forgetting everything the administration first said about this attack in favor of creating ridiculous conspiracy, etc)

Geeshus effing cripes, they are not trying to "deflect" anything. This is manufactured outrage from the right, trying to scapegoat in excess of the facts. Your assumptions that you've posted in this thread, Dell, are the perfect example of it. You have one foot in non-reality and the other on a banana peel. Absurd and ridiculous, and most of thinking America is sick of this shi.at.

The Other Sept. 11

Blame Obama for four deaths in Libya. But don’t blame Bush for nearly 3,000 deaths in New York



The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.


That’s what Republicans are arguing in 2012. Which is pretty funny, if you don’t count the dead Americans, because it’s the opposite of what the GOP said 10 years ago. Back then, the conspiracy theories and the 20/20 hindsight were about the original 9/11 attacks. And the Republican Party line was that anyone who accused the president of neglect or deceit was unpatriotic.


Jus sayin...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._for_9_11.html