Bush’s initial response to the attacks on the World Trade Center was inauspicious. He seemed shaken and halting in his first statement, at 9:30 A.M. , shortly after stepping out of the classroom in Sarasota. He described the incidents as “an apparent terrorist attack” and vowed “to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.” The Secret Service then rushed Bush onto Air Force One, and the presidential jet roared off into the sky without delay, headed for Washington.

Here.

Any questions?

I suspect you are being fed bad talking points. I recommend some website triage.

The rightwing can scream bloody murder about nonsense all day long. You’re not getting any traction outside the rightwing bubble for a very simple reason: it’s stupid!

of course there will be confusion in the immediate aftermath. Bush called 911 “an apparent terror attack” after two fucking planes slammed into the WTC. ONE plane is an apparent attack, two leaves nothing to question. Why didn’t Dems jump on that when Bush said it? Because it would have been an idiotic line of attack.

And all this after Romney’s absolutely shameful handling of the exact same incident.

Here:

The two US officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against US facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent.

The report from the station chief was written late on Wednesday, Sep 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault”.

Sounds to me like Obama isn’t the only one in charge of our defenses that would greatly prefer this to be an unpredictable random attack (and is also generating a bit of ass-covering).

Check out this Hail Mary pass.

Thought you’d like to see it before ten thousand liberal websites pick it up.

Try and come up with a reasonable explanation why the attack being due to a video somehow makes a better “cover” story for the CIA than the attack being a pre-planned terror strike. I can’t think of anything.

I can think of lots of reasons why a President selling his “victory” in the War on Terror might want the attack to be some random unpredictable act of impulse rather than a sign that the Arab Spring is turning into a radical Islamist summer and that despite the damage we’re done to it, al Qaeda is still a factor.

More here:

Ms. Lamb, in her congressional testimony, said that from her command center in Washington she was able to track the lethal events of Benghazi in something akin to real time. She was in constant communication with the agent on the consulate grounds who first notified Washington that an assault—”attack, attack,” the agent said—was under way. Ms. Lamb also said that the State Department was receiving a steady stream of data on the afternoon of Sept. 11 indicating that terrorism was afoot. Such admissions are what have given rise to charges of a coverup.

“Everyone had the same intelligence,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fox News last week. But that also appears untrue. How information immediately made known to an assistant secretary of state could somehow be withheld for eight days from the secretary of state herself—and from our U.N. ambassador, from the director of national intelligence, from the analytic corps at the Central Intelligence Agency, from the president’s chief spokesman, and from the president himself—now forms the central question in the Benghazi affair.

Further, for the umpteenth time, there were CIA agents at the outpost that was attacked. There are obvious reasons why there might be a cover story.