[spence]

Too much getting mixed up with the Binders flap.

Recap: We've already established that President Obama referred to the attack as terrorism at least 3 times in the two days after the event. We've also come to agreement that in the week following the White House could have been more consistent in it's remarks that were being based off of incomplete information.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When Ambassador Rice did the Sunday shows, and Obama was at the UN, everyone in the world knew it was a terrorist attack. But the administration specifically denied that.

I'm assuming that your claim here is based on the ferocity of the attack. Certainly at that point "everyone in the world" let alone yourself didn't have a detailed understanding of available intelligence.

On Sept 16th Ambassador Rice described it was our best understanding that a few people gathered outside in response to regional outrage over the video and a local extremist militia with heavy weapons quickly moved in and started the attack.

Specifically she said:

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-...3#.UIKy7s1ygno

This is congruent with initial reporting from the scene as well as sworn testimony given at the House Oversight Committee by the head of Security at the time.

She's clearly indicating this wasn't just some random mob of people...but rather heavily armed extremists.

You've stated "For the next 2 weeks, everything we heard from the administration (be it Obama, Jay Carney, or Ambassador Rice) were specific claims that it was not an act of terror."

Here's the actual transcript from the Sept 20th press conference 7 days after the attack.

Q Jay, a couple things on Libya, a follow. FOX has some intelligence sources saying that al Qaeda was involved in this attack and possibly a former Guantanamo detainee. So I’m wondering if you have a reaction, comment on that. And then second, there was a counterterrorism official on the Hill yesterday calling it a terrorist attack. Any further administration clarification on what you’re classifying the attack?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me -- hold on one second, let me find this here. I think the sources that you cite I think include the open hearing with the NCTC Director, Mr. Olsen, in which he discussed indications of possible involvement of elements of extremist groups, including possible participation by elements of al Qaeda and particularly al Qaeda in the Maghreb, an al Qaeda affiliate.

It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.

He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has -- and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence -- we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.

Q So just to clarify, does the President see that it was an attack on 9/11, a terrorist attack on 9/11? Is that the administration or the President's view?

MR. CARNEY: The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. So we use the same calendar at the White House that you do, and, yes, he sees it. I will simply point you to the testimony of Mr. Olsen, in which he said, based on the information that they have now -- and this is an ongoing investigation -- their judgment is that it was an opportunistic attack in which elements including, possibly, elements of al Qaeda in the Maghreb, participated.

Q I want to go back to something you said, the self-evident part of that. Just help me understand that. It was a self-evident terrorist attack because acts of terror were committed? Or it was self-evident because you've -- because it actually happened on 9/11?

MR. CARNEY: No, no, no. I'm sorry. I meant it was self -- that had this happened on any day of the week in any month, this would have been a terrorist attack. This was an assault on our embassy, a violent attack on our -- I mean, rather our diplomatic facility there that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

Q So it's the definition --

MR. CARNEY: Correct.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012

Carney clearly calls the attack a terrorist attack multiple times. The GOP spin appears to be that if it was triggered in a spontaneous manner it can't be terrorism. This is idiotic.

I mean...nobody would have thought this could have had anything to do with the video...right?

REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R-ID): I just have a quick question for Lieutenant Colonel Wood and Mr. Nordstrom. Given the information that you saw on TV and your knowledge of the situation in Libya, did you come to a conclusion as to whether this was a terrorist act or whether it was based on some film that was on the Internet?

[...]

NORDSTROM: The -- the first impression that I had was that it was going to be something similar to one of the brigades that we saw there, specifically the -- the brigade -- and it's been named in the press -- that came to my mind was Ansar al-Sharia.

It was a -- a unit or a group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis. [House Oversight Committee hearing on consulate security in Benghazi, 10/11/12, via Nexis]

Jim, if you have evidence of a preplanned al Qaeda attack please call the State Department ASAP. Otherwise the use of "terrorism" by the Administration is exactly the same as your own.

How the death of 4 Americans is being spun for political gain is revolting.

A few days ago the top Dem on the House Oversight Committee released a scathing letter detailing how the House Republicans are misusing their authority to mislead the American people in an attempt to influence the election.

I encourage you to read it in its entirety:

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov...0to%20Issa.pdf

The thing is Jim, there's a lot of good information on the Consulate attack out there. The story that the Administration refused to label this terrorism for two weeks is demonstrably false. The suspicion that the attack was enabled by al Qaeda and pre-meditated is just that...suspicion and not presently supported by the facts. The possibility that outrage over the video could have triggered the attack is supported by on the scene reporting and sworn testimony.

And worse, the release of selective documents and incomplete testimony to undermine the President's authority for partisan gain is reprehensible.

There's always a lot of mud slung during campaigns, but this is particularly bad. My only hope for Romney is that he probably doesn't really have a clue as to what's going on...he's just reading the talking points put in front of him.

-spence