A couple of days after the Benghazi fiasco, I wrote here:
The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.
Four weeks on, the official spokespersons of the government of the United States are belatedly catching up to this third-rate foreign hack’s version of events. The State Department has now conceded that there was no movie protest at all, and that it was, in fact, one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.
Both these very obvious points were surely known to Washington by 6 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday September 12, by which time the surviving consulate staff had been evacuated to Tripoli. Yet Ambassador Rice, President Obama, et al., were still blaming the video days later. Obama and Secretary Clinton always refer to Ambassador Stevens as “Chris” — Chris this, Chris that — as if he were a treasured friend or intimate. Yet they and the sad hollow men around them dishonor their “friend” in death.
Given the conflicting reports on the manner of his demise, any chance of an autopsy? Or is that also politically inconvenient?