Speaking to reporters today at the State Department, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed that the attack on the Benghazi Consulate last week was a “terrorist attack,” and promised to see the US track down the “terrorists” responsible.
The statement caps a week of attempting to spin and re-spin Benghazi in different ways, with top officials initially insisting that the attack was a “spontaneous” escalation of a protest carried out to copy an Egyptian rally earlier in the day.
The labeling of the strike as a “terrorist attack” is a relatively recent thing for the Obama Administration, with the comments beginning in the past couple of days after being pushed by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I – CT).
Perhaps the oddest aspect of the change in narrative is that officials continue to insist that they have “no proof” of any of the assorted theories pushed on the attack, and don’t explain why they shifted from the one to the other in the absence of proof.
Terrorist attack? Theirs or ours? Does this also put us back into an "orange alert" with more bucks for Homeland Security, more sales of the body scanners brokered by Messrs. Chertoff and Ashcroft, a new and improved generation of drones- tiny but lethal- and Cardinal Brennan now doing double overtime selecting assassination targets?
Yea because Hilary and the US government hold emmassies and consulates sacred.
So was it also a terrorist attack when they were pressuring the British to storm the Ecuadorian embassy a few weeks ago?
Yes. a terrorist attack, the same as the one on the Chinese embassy while slaughtering civilians in Serbia.
Uncle Lieberman is a Trojan Horse. He is a representative of another race. His tongue is forked. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.
America has spawned many Liebermans, people of divided loyalties, people who are like chameleons.
Such people can't be trusted.
I'm sure soon enough we'll hear the Benghazi attackers were *really* under the direct supervision and control of Iranian handlers. Never mind what the truth is- as long as it fits the flavor-of-the-hour official story, it's good enough. They know the American public has the political attention span of a house fly, so whatever story works is the order of the day.
Attention span of a house fly? It's far, far less than that!
What's even more important is that the American public has the political discernment of a house fly.
may be they did let happen or even organized the killing of their own ambassador, because he did know too much.
Sometimes it is not enough to withdraw a politician. Political killings are more frequent than we are informed and brainwashed about them.
Terrorist attack? Theirs or ours? Does this also put us back into an "orange alert" with more bucks for Homeland Security (and more for the Homeland Security Committee, and Joe Lieberman, who gets his marching orders from AIPAC and the Likud, to do), more sales of full-body scan machines so lucratively brokered by Chertoff and Ashcroft (lobbyists for the machine's manufacturer), more drones, (like the $163 million one that crashed in a Maryland swamp, as well as the next generation kamakazee midget models), and more targeted assassinations (to keep Cardinal Brennan working overtime)?
The point is that this new narrative from Lieberman through Clinton is necessary to justify, and promote the "war on terror", and why we still need it, while ignoring that it has been created by our own actions in the Middle East, not since 9/11, but for more than five decades. In the more immediate context, the tragic death of our ambassador and other embassy personnel should have been anticipated, not merely because of some video gone viral on the internet, but maybe because of out wanton destruction of Libya? – e.g., its leadership and its socialist system which used much its valuable oil wealth to provide real benefits for its people (health, education, old age social security) and built the largest water project in the world, one that would have provided relief to its drought stricken neighbors- we destroyed of all of this in our alleged attempt to "save" Libya for democracy". Admittedly, Qaddafi brooked no dissent and was a brutal strongman, but he kept the peace in his country and provided material benefit for his people- and tried to bring unity and economic cooperation to the fractured African continent (now all the more fractured by the multiple wars we have been clandestinely sponsoring). He also accommodated the US by participating in the rendition program under Bush- as a payoff for not being overthrown, and Bush reciprocated by capturing and renditioning rebels against the Libyan regime. As for his alleged responsibility in the Lockerbie bombing, even the NY Times, which was part of the twenty year media demonization propaganda, admitted the case against his airline security chief, Megrahi was dubious.
All this changed with the shortsighted, diplomacy-challenged, "human rights" cadre that took over under Obama-Clinton, except that it's all blown up in their face, and they are still scratching their collective fannies searching for the right explanation. Thank God, Hillary retires next year, and hopefully, if the Democrats increase their majority, they will replace Lieberman, though one at this end is holding his breath that Obama will have an epiphany like JFK (given his own dubious history and stepfather's CIA connections, and the power of his handlers or supporters- Crown/General Dynamics, Dimon/Chase, and Blankfein/Goldman Sachs) unless he has the courage to face what JFK faced to make the foreign policy changes the country desperately needs.
Terrorist attack? Theirs or ours? Does this also put us back into an "orange alert" with more bucks for Homeland Security (and more for the Homeland Security Committee
Global research has an insightful article on this indicating that Libya's Green Resistance (i.e., Qaddafi loyalists) were responsible and that the U.S. and NATO are covering it up.
See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resista…
There are only two groups that benefit from this attack. Israel and the corrupt and immoral Democrat/Republican political machine that controls the government of the United States.
what its sounds like they have can't come up with a 'narrative' to explain it away without tripping over the other 'narratives' they used to dig themselves out of holes. They can't say its a terrorist action because that would mean the assault on Libya caused the problem and they can't admit to it being a demonstration that got out of hand because then people might ask what the DC was doing to cause such a thing.
The "perception management" is in full swing. Yes, they were terrorists, but no they may not be. Libya is a wonderfull peacefull democratic country, and the hundreds of armed "militias" are doing the democracy's work. Some of them go bad, kill, rape, kidnap, extort money, but these are democracy's growing pains
Now we even have PROTESTORS against the bad people who attack the embassy. They have rocket lauchers an hand proppeled grenades, and rid the town of some bad militias. But then, by mistake, they got rid of some good guys, government protected militias. What tales we weave… I think that Hillary Clinton cannot wait to leave the job where by any standards she would be deemed a disaster. But we can define it as a success, and she will move into her new office, her new "think tank" to make money giving speaches, writing books and consulting our government on the very thing that she did. Can this get any lower?
It will get lower when the "HILLARY 2016" presidential campaign commences. We will witness the violent, grinning, amoral Barack Obama campaigning for her.
Universal reversal of the saying''WE CAME WE SAW, AND HE DIED''.So what about ths poor guy,''HE CAME HE WAS USED AND THEN WASTED in another Faaalse flaaaaag operation.
At best, this is properly called Double-Think (1984), where two diametrically opposing ideas are held at the same time, without conscious discernment of those differences. At the worse, it is cold calculating political pragmatism with absolutely no morality. I tend to think that it is the latter. The USA doesn't have a "war ON terror" — it is a "war OF terror", just as the "war ON drugs" is really a "war OF drugs" — control of distribution & profits, not of eradication.
There is a high probability that it was the CIA's own Al CIAduh that assassinated the ambassador. This isn't Billary Clinton's first killing — Vince Foster was "suicided". The pretext of chasing terrorist ghosts in our employ will be used repeatedly to justify more military adventurism in the name of "fighting terrorism" — perpetual imperialist war to ultimately benefit the banksters, our puppeteers.