What difference would it have made, if it was reported as a terror act or not?

An article by Reuters (the British News outlet) illustrating specifically the timeline of the Benghazi incident was interesting. It could only be judged by its content that the blame of not reporting it as a "terror" attack should be laid at the United States government, particularly, at the door of the Obama White House.

However, the report only mentioned just once the "anti-Muslim film" that was purported to have started demonstrations on September 11th. 2012, in Cairo and other Arab capitals around the world.

The impression of that was, the film or video that had appeared on the Internet, was of no consequence, and that gave credence to the opposition by the Republican Party in the U.S. that the Benghazi attack was separate from the demonstrations, which, somehow, have started spontaneously, in protest against the video.

The time line of the Benghazi attack has begun almost late in the evening "at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began..." and it ....

"... carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified." which has obviously been supplied by the intelligence community.

Yet, how could that be realistic, when the reports, of the Cairo demonstration at the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, have been going on in the morning hours of September 11th, and the mainstream media in the U.S. have been broadcasting those news items along side the Benghazi attack throughout that day?

Even the most stupid person would connect the two incidents that came out simultaneously, from Cairo and Benghazi to be about the same motive; the outrage that Muslims were showing against the video.

In other words, there was no way that anyone could separate the two; no, not even the Intelligence personnel watching them in real time.

The article went on to say, "A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared."

It continued by saying, ""a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel."" ... and it took a third email, which was also marked SBU (Sensitive But Unclassified) very late at 6:07 p.m. in the evening of the same day to clarify the situation, somewhat.

It was that email, which had mentioned that Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliate, had claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack; but even so, it did not say whether it (attack) was part of the demonstrations, which have now become widespread, and going on in the Islamic world or not.

The news coming out at that time have become mixed, sketchy and confusing; and as one intelligence official would put it, "Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous.." and that "the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed." (Reuters, 10/24/12).

Those scenarios placed both the White House and the U.S. State Department in a precarious position, to give any information about what was happening in Libya and Egypt to be separate from each other, that one was a terrorist attack and the other was about an anti-Muslim video.

At the same time, they (scenarios) could not be used to assign any blame, due to their nature, as described by those Intelligence officials observing them.

However, it would not take too long for the Republicans and the Mitt Romney campaign to politicize the Benghazi attack in which the Ambassador of the U.S., Chris Stevens and three other diplomats have been killed; and if that was not reprehensible and irresponsible on their part, nothing could be termed as such.

Americans should be aware that their country was at war with Islamist extremist, even before 9/11, 2001, when the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., were attacked; and to simply forget about those attacks and (to) play politics with such as a serious circumstance, as the Benghazi attack was, would be unconscionable, to say the least.

The people in the Mainland U.S. and those in the fields in foreign countries in the embassies and diplomatic missions, plus those fighting in the Iraq and Afghan wars were in the same situation, that there was an enemy out there that would not spare a single moment to inflict harm on the U.S.

What the Obama administration should do now was to go on a fishing expedition to get the perpetrators of such heinous act and to bring them to justice, just as it (administration) did to Osama bin Laden, for master minding the 9/11, 2001 attacks.

Meanwhile, the idea that such attacks would stop should be none-existent, so long as the U.S. was safeguarding the notion that all people should live in freedom, and that where emancipation was, there it would be too; in Afghanistan, in Syria, and wherever liberty was being attacked.

As fighting for freedom and maintaining it was a responsibility that has been enshrined in the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which meant that its citizens should always be ready to defend and protect it, so it must be.

Besides, turning on our own government was not the answer to the country's problems; as there were many ways to solve them under a strong and forthright leadership; hence, the 2012 presidential election, to get that person with those credentials to be elected.

Comments 6 comments

American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

"Even the most stupid person would connect the two incidents that came out simultaneously, from Cairo and Benghazi to be about the same motive; the outrage that Muslims were showing against the video."

This is why the story gets politicized, the Cairo incident happend 5 to 8 hours earlier than the Benghazi attack. If one cannot even get the beginning correct, why should anyone trust what is said next? Especially when we know Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant in the State Department watched the entire incident in real time. So the State Department knew right from the start the truth as to what happened.

ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

This was an example of presidential incompetence or presidential lying.

In either case the truth was not told for two weeks.

It was evident to even the stupid people that the attack was a planned terrorist attack as the film had already been out for some time.

To make the attack on 911 was not a coincidence.

The first reports from the White House on the attack was that it was because of the film.

The next reports from the White House was that it was a terrorist attack, but it was not planned.

The final reports from the White House was the it was a planned terrorist attack.

This planned terrorist attack is an example that the US Intelligence is not much better than it was on September 10, 2001.

As for politicizing events, that is precisely what President Obama did with the Osama Bin Laden mission. The mission was still in progress when Obama made it public. This jeopardized the Seal Team and the operatives on the ground.

owurakwasip 4 years ago Author


The White House does not report the news; and even if it does, in a case like the Benghazi attack, what difference will that make to the public?

The American people have been notified about the attack, and it would be for the government to take the necessary action to protect the over two hundred other embassies and diplomatic missions around the world.

The hope of everyone would be for the investigation, that was still ongoing, to finally lead to the perpetrators, and to get them severely punished.

That is the only responsibility the Obama administration has, in regard to the unfortunate Benghazi attack.

The administration has done it to Osama bin Laden. It would not hesitate to do it again to those responsible for the Benghazi incident.

You can trust Obama on that.

Politicizing the Benghazi attack is merely to divide the country.

Tell that to Mitt Romney, who says that he wants to unite all the people, irrespective of party affiliations.

American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

So you are pleased the President lied and mislead you? Really? Are you still sold on the fake Bin Laden Story? Obama wanted nothing to do with getting Bin Laden. It took a week of getting yelled at from Panetta and Clinton to say yes and he had to be dragged off the golf course for that. It is the Obama administrations job to keep ALL Americans safe, whether here or those who serve in Embassies. Ambassador requests for more security were ignored by this administration, the fire fight went on for 7 hours, where were those people you claim Obama sent? Got news for you, there were none. A report today shows that security levels are at the same in ALL embassies, no increases.

Trust Obama, I do, I trust him to continue to be the failure he has always been. Trust Me.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

It was more important for Obama to do what was in the best interests of his Re-election Campaign. Imagine if Obama had OK'ed the Reactionary Force to go in there and save those Americans and they had killed some Libyans in the process... imagine the outrage and scandal that he would have had to content with?

The riots throughout North Africa and the Middle East that went on for a week, where they were burning Obama in effigy and shouting "Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!" could have escalated and gotten more people killed.

That would have been even worse for his campaign than this 'scandal' which the media is keeping a lid on, so that 90% of Americans don't really pay attention to it.

owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi Ken Burgess,

For the first time in my life, I am going to defend the media, that they are not putting or "keeping" a lid, as you put it, on anything. Americans cannot know everything that happens around the world, It is the government that will do the best it can on any particular event, situation or incident and give the public the relevant information about it.

The media may have their own correspondents and reporters feeding information about a said happenstance to their news rooms, and they may have different versions.

Yet, with the Benghazi attack, nobody was expecting it, and also nobody could pinpoint what was going on there, and to give any "specific" real time briefing on it, was somewhat impossible; and remembering that there were demonstrations about an anti-Muslim film or movie that were also being observed at the same time as the Benghazi goings on. There were distractions and confusion galore all over the globe.

In such a state of affairs, the government can only provide the kind of information, based on what its officials or the intelligent community may be able at best to relay to the State Department and other offices, such as the FBI.

To avoid misinformation or projecting a false alarm on the public needlessly, a great deal of discretion is used.

Benghazi fell into that sphere of circumstance; so blaming Obama or Ms. Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. or anyone else would be out of the question.

Unless Americans would like to turn an incident in which four good Americans lost their lives, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, into a political fodder; however, that would not be fair on them for the excellent work they were doing for their country in that remote and barren place. They should not have died in vain.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article