> > The first sentence is a generalization about acts of > > terror; the next three sentences make it crystal clear > > that he was considering the Benghazi attack to be one > > of those acts of terror. > > wgm4u: > Actually he specifically refers to Benghazi here as > "this terrible act", that's NOT a generalization. > What we want to know is why the White House tried to change the narrative by claiming that the video caused an armed riot in Benghazi, which led to the attack - apparently they didn't get that information from the intelligence agency, because intelligence knew from the first hour there was no demonstration at the embassy.
So why did they send out Susan Rice with that bogus 'blame the video' story? Go figure. "The administration's initial accounts, however, changed dramatically in the following days, according to a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements..." 'U.S. description of Benghazi attacks, at first cautious, changed after 3 days' McClatchy, October 18, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/8eqjblz
