The problem is that the rise of Al Queda in the area, as well as the threats to US an British embassies and consulates, was known with certainty before the strike. It was talked about in communications to the State Department weeks/months before.But deciding what to do with personnel and deciding what level of security is reasonable is probably quite difficult. Stevens left Tripoli for Benghazi after deciding that there was enough security to do so.The election was at a peak point. Romney issued a statement. The US Press acting as a wing of the White House attacked Romney's stance.Well, Romney embarrassed himself and Republican leaders with his very un-presidential and opportunistic jab at Obama.They had to label this incident as one that had no connection with Al QaedaBut I don't think there's anything for the Administration to gain by knowingly obfuscating al Qaeda's connection to the attack when the facts were going to surface in the coming weeks.If the Administration knew with a high degree of certainty that it was al Qaeda, then insisting it wasn't al Qaeda runs the risk or appearing to be catastrophically wrong. No, what I suspect is that the al Qaeda threat assessment was whatever it was. Then there was the video and the related violence in Tripoli, and al Qaeda used that opportunity to launch it's attack in Benghazi which naturally created confusion between 'protest', 'violent protest', and 'highly coordinated attack'.After the attack, I don't really care what the Administration publicly calls it because there likely would be some counter-intelligence strategy involved.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra