Although one would expect the U.S. State Department to be the most accurate when reporting details surrounding an attack on American men and women and the country's government institutions, that was not the case with the Libya attack according to the Associated Press and Fox News.
On Wednesday, Fox News reported that the Obama administration initially explained the Libyan attack as being motivated by religious fanatics obsessed with an anti-Islamic film and the revolting portrayal of the prophet Mohammed in it.
The film was despicable to say the least, but it was not the motivation for the attack, as came to light shortly thereafter. And that's the reason for the ruckus now.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, initially followed the Obama administration in labeling the attack as "spontaneous violence," which she says resulted due to protest about an anti-Islam film. Her comments were then picked up and supported by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who said one day later that "the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government's initial assessment."
Oh vey. It is like dominoes. One person in the administration takes a position and everyone else on the Obama team parrots itÂ—to their discredit now.
It gets worse.
(Photo Credit: New York: Underwood & Underwood, publishers (US-LOC))
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney showed how unwilling the administration was to consider an alternative motivation for the attack when he says that because the White House "saw no evidence" that would back up claims being made by the media and others about Libya being a preplanned attack, they didn't consider it as such.
Boy were they wrong, and what's so shocking is that 11 years after the worst terrorist attack on American soilÂ—four years of which has been under the influence of the Obama administrationÂ—leaders in the White House have all but forgotten the lessons of 9/11: Anything is possible, and don't discount the obvious.
Carney discounted the obvious. A U.S. Embassy came under attack, and four men get ambushed. Then when security arrived on the scene and went in to locate the ambassador physically, no one could find him anywhere at the facility. And rumors circulated that he'd been raped in the interim, before his death. It takes time to plot the kind of overthrow that occurred at the American facility in Libya. That fact alone should have served to make Carney and others in the White House leery of blaming the deaths and destruction on a mob riot.
Carney didn't just discount the obvious, however, like the White House leadership that influenced him, he also parrots the same "anti-Islam film was the cause" rhetoric that sounds more like jumping to conclusions than talk of a planned attack did at the time.
But he wasn't alone in that assessment; and he can hardly be blamed for delivering remarks he was surely coached to make by President Obama, the State Department and others. Yet he will probably be one of the fall guys in the story in the end.
Fox says the Associated Press obtained a CIA memo that showed intelligence suggested protesters against the anti-Islam film started the riot, which then was hijacked by extremists with heavier weapon power. However, it is now known that the anti-Islam film was not the motivation for the Libya attack at all. And the CIA should have known better, right?
Mitt Romney says "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
It's about time, of course.
And what a sad state of affairs it is that America has now become so lax in its security abroad during the Obama administration that even the Sept. 11 anniversary date serves as no significant marker to the president when violence erupts at American institutions elsewhere in the world on that date.