We never believed the initial report on the Benghazi attack by our government was accurate. The deadly attack on the American mission there initially was reported as a “spontaneous” response to protests in Egypt over an offensive video.
The Benghazi affair was in the news again Sunday and continues after Susan Rice, who gave the initial report, was on television again commenting on the matter. She said again that those initial statements were based on the best information the White House had. National Security Adviser Rice said the government never intended to mislead anybody. The attack in Libya killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
A number of elected officials in Congress doubt her words and still are skeptical. Why would the government want the attack to be called “spontaneous”? Some believe the misleading statements were made to downplay the power of terrorists since the administration had indicated for some time that we had them on the run, and we were able to defend against them. Others believe the initial statements were made to protect Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time. It has been revealed that requests for additional security at the mission had been denied, and later in her own words, Hillary indicated that what happened in Benghazi could be viewed as the responsibility of “the buck” stops at her desk. “What does it matter,” Hillary said in answer to a question on Benghazi some time after the attack.
Sen. John McCain, a harsh critic of the administration, said the words of Rice Sunday were “totally misleading, totally false.”
A person who had even minor military experience understood almost immediately after the attack, because of the nature of it, it had to be planned in advance and was not “spontaneous.”
Why was Rice asked to be on network talk shows Sunday when the television news people knew she was going to give the same answers to questions as earlier?