POLITICIZING THE BENGHAZI ATTACK.
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.