And on what evidence?
And why, as evidence mounts that U.S. officials on the ground in Libya knew from almost the very moments the attacks began, that this was a terrorist attack, that Democrats and their allies in the mainstream are strangely disinterested in this fabrication.
If you watched CNN tonight (at least from 5:40 PST until nearly 6:40), you’d be unaware of serious evidence brought to light today about the Administration’s duplicity on the Benghazi attacks. Seems some strange Arizona woman’s criminal actions have more bearing on the national interest than the Obama team’s misrepresenting a terrorist attack. Not to mention in its inept response to that attack.
RELATED: “Where Was the Commander-in-Chief For All of This?” (And why don’t our friends in the media care to ask?)
UPDATE: Over at Commentary, Jonathan Tobin does a great job of fleshing out a point related to the question addressed in the title to this post:
Just as problematic was [senior diplomat Gregory[ Hicks’s telling of his shock when he heard U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice tell the country that U.S. intelligence had decided the attack was the result of film criticism run amuck. Given that he had already communicated to Washington the fact that the film wasn’t a factor in Libya and that U.S. personnel in Libya knew the assault was the work of an Islamist group connected to al-Qaeda, this makes the growing controversy about the truth behind the official administration talking points that the White House altered to downplay any connection to terror even more worrisome. As Pete Wehner noted on Monday, the emails prove that the administration knowingly misled the country about the attack in a manner that makes it impossible to believe they weren’t motivated by their desire to help President Obama win re-election.
Read the whole thing.
Shouldn’t our media be investigating to see who fabricated the talking point — and why. And whether such senior officials as then-Secretary Clinton and even President Obama knew about — or even countenanced — the fabrication.
UP-UPDATE: Writing this morning (05/09/13) in Powerline, Paul Mirengoff asks whether President Obama was “engaged at all during this crisis“:
Did he inquire about the options for responding? If so, what was he told and why did he concur in rejecting them? If not, why didn’t he inquire?
Read the whole thing. And don’t expect anyone in the legacy media to do the asking.
UP-UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin reminds us that
The “spontaneous demonstration” story line did not come from people on the ground or from the intelligence community (who knew from the get-go that al-Qaeda linked operatives were involved). It came from senior administration officials.