The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

And what would they gain by convincing people it was a demonstration instead of terrorism? Why would anyone blame them if it was terrorism and not a demonstration?

What is it they were supposedly trying to hide? None of it makes sense, even if what you’re saying is true, it really is no big deal.

It seems to me much more likely that they either genuinely didn’t know, or they were trying to let the terrorists think we were still in the dark about what happened (remember, that “embassy” was really a CIA station, operating with the consent of local authorities who might be embarassed if their cooperation were revealed).

I’m sorry , Rob, but that’s been my opinion from the day it happened. I figured it was a deliberate attack using a demonstration as cover. What possible difference could it make to Obama politically whether it was terrorism or the film? He had nothing to gain either way, and he certainly had nothing to gain by lying about it.

Talking to you sometimes is like talking to a table lamp.

At worst, it seems to me the White House couldn’t figure out what was going on due to the fog of war. And that maybe they spoke prematurely, or didn’t get their ducks in a row before they did speak. But for the life of me, I can’t see what this “Big Lie” is, and what they planned to gain by it–and how they figured they could get away with it.

Why would they lie, what would they have to gain? The election wasn’t for another month.

Why would they lie about something when the truth was bound to come out in a few hours anyway?

And why go after Rice, who had nothing to do with anything?

The only thing I can see the Administration could possibly be faulted for is not knowing if, when and where an attack was coming, and not having troops nearby ready to deploy. But look at that map I linked to. That’s 11 time zones, and in most of them, it was already 12 Sep. The Benghazi attack began at 2140 local time.

No. This is Republican wishful thinking, sour grapes, and dirty pool.

Too much confusion to deal with?

The simple fact is, we were lied to. You guys dismiss it as Republican politics. That’s just as political. Only political motivation would explain the need to make it ok to be lied to.

Sept 11

Egypt US embassy in Cairo. 3000 demonstrators. Vandalism.

Benghazi.
—————–

Sept-13

Yemen US embassy in Sana’a. Vehicles set on fire.
—————–

Sept 14

Tunisia.
Pakistan
Sudan
India
—————

Indonesia Sept 17

Greece Sept 23

Protest timeline

Worldwide reaction

Terrorist attacks on embassies.