Say, this admission on Benghazi terrorist attack might cause Obama a few problems

[Casino67]

Hot Air:

 

Ya think?

After a week of hesitation, the

White House

now says it is “self-evident” that a “terrorist attack,” and not just a spontaneous reaction from a furious mob, struck the US Consulate in

Benghazi

,

Libya

, last week.

 

Actually, it

wasn’t

“hesitation.” The White House insisted that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a protest that “spun out of control” — and sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto a number of Sunday talk shows last weekend

to insist on it

. They rolled out a false story even while the Libyan President said there was “no doubt” that the attack was premeditated and well organized.

Why did the Obama administration stick with the false story until it fell apart? The Christian Science Monitor answers that question in the following paragraphs:

 

The characterization is important, because it opens the door to the conclusion that the attack was a preplanned assault, resulting in the deaths of four US diplomats, including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

 

The repercussions of declaring that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist assault on the

United States

would be extensive. For starters, it would raise questions about the

Obama administration

’s precautions in a volatile region and its preparedness for anti-US strikes in an area known to harbor

Al Qaeda

and other Islamist extremist elements.

 

The cover story offered by the White House shows just how badly they miscalculated on the Arab Spring, and the inevitable seizure of power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the rise of AQ in eastern Libya, two utterly predictable consequences of Obama’s interventions. It also shows that the Obama administration, from the top down, understood just how bad this story was — and either lied to themselves, lied to us, or a bit of both in order to avoid the consequences of it. That might be the most damaging revelation of all.