THE "REDUNDANCY" OF THE BENGHAZI ATTACK.
It (attack) was becoming redundant, with the media and politicians streaming it for no good reason.
The Benghazi attack could not be blamed on the present Obama White House, just as 9/11, 2001 could not be assigned to the Bush administration, as to why it happened; as they both were incidents of unpredictability.
Besides, the time line for what was happening on the ground was completely warped, to say the least; as the emails that were being sent to the United States State Department from Cairo, Egypt, and also from Benghazi, Libya, came in in such a rush that they were or became confusing.
Messages sent to many federal offices, including the FBI, mentioned 6:07 p.m. ET on September 11, which was well into the night, while the attack itself was ongoing on September 12 in Libya. The differential of the two time frames made news reports to be lapping over each other.
Nobody knew when the actual attack had really started until around 4:00 p.m., when the first email came into the State Department, and it even said that everything was quiet in the consulate compound, which made the news of the attack even more conflicting.
Also the claim by some Republican leaders that Ansar al-Sharia, a splinter group of al Qaeda had claimed responsibility of the attack was not verifiable, as the emails indicated.
"Update 2: Ansar al Sharia Claims Responsibility For Benghazi Attack." The message said: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group has claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." (CNN, 10/25/12).
Yet, the group only maintained that their members did not participate in the attack, though, they sympathized with the attackers; but the Republicans stuck to the wrong information in a letter to Obama on Wednesday, and referring to the numerous emails that had come in that,
"These emails make clear that your Administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to Al-Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it."; which was not true.
An article on CNN Internet front page summed it up thus, "But the most explosive of the e-mails - which were released late Tuesday - may have been inaccurate, a "spot report" on a rapidly evolving and highly confusing situation.", and that gave a somewhat "clear picture" of the scenarios at the time.
... and Aaron Zelin, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, denied the "Facebook page or Twitter feed of Ansar al Sharia in Benghazi," making any such claim.
However, what made one to wonder so much was the omission of the anti-Muslim film or video "castigating" Mohammad, in any of the objections of the Republican leaders, including Mitt Romney, the party's candidate for the 2012 presidential election.
The antagonism for the movie was being shown by Muslim countries around the world, and to differentiate that from the Benghazi attack would be deliberately misinforming or misleading the American people, as those demonstrations, which had started in Cairo, Egypt, were taking place on the same day as the attack.
Those demonstrations, presumably, have been spontaneous, while the Benghazi attack has been planned by terrorists; but that was where their differences stopped, otherwise there was no way in telling one from the other.
Upon the information the State Department was receiving "in real time", it would be inconceivable for anyone to jump to the conclusion that the message that was being put out by the Obama administration was inaccurate, because the "spontaneity" of the demonstrations and the Benghazi attack were inseparable.
In fact, to be honest in every way, one could associate both activities, the demonstration in Egypt and the Benghazi assault, to the Mohammad movie.
However, rather than isolating and politicizing the burning down of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, in which the Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three Americans died, politicians should focus on how the over 200 embassies and consulates could be sufficiently protected, so that what took place in Benghazi would not be repeated anywhere again; as anything else would be disingenuous on anybody's part.
President Barack Obama was responsible for all the diplomats out there serving the country, and therefore he must have the support of Americans, for them to view the Benghazi attack objectively, and to say that he told the truth about it, based on the information he had.
There was no doubt that he had instructed the Intelligence community to do all it could to bring the attackers to justice, and that was more important than for others to make unsubstantiated and unsustainable statements to gain political advantage.