Terrorist Attack was inflammatory at a time when civilian populations were reacting to a video in the Middle East. It was completely obvious Secretary Clinton was knowledgeable of the circumstances in Benghazi. She was the first to say this was a planned attack. It is not about what the USA knew. Obviously, the USA knew what had occurred.
The dialogue of labeling it a terrorist attack would be unhelpful to what was occurring across the region and could cause increased danger to USA consulates.
9:29AM EST November 16. 2012
WASHINGTON — Former CIA director David Petraeus (click here) testified Friday to House lawmakers investigating the Sept.11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens.
Susan Phelan, spokeswoman for the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters waiting outside the secure underground briefing room that Petraeus is due to testify before the Senate Intelligence later this morning....
Clarity of public discourse during an emergency when it involves the safety of our consulates is irrelevant. The Senate is not the Executive Branch and the House is not the Senate or the Executive Branch. They cannot impose their will on the freedom of speech of the Executive Branch when it is carrying out the business of the nation.
Clarity of language is a political agenda and has absolutely nothing to do with the functioning of the Executive Branch.
Those stating in defense of their own political agenda regarding Benghazi, minimally, owes the President, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice an apology for imposing faux values to their actions
The politicization of the Benghazi deaths is "W"rong.
End of discussion.
