White House: Actually, Maybe the Benghazi Raid Was a Terrorist Attack After All

Today's the 20th, so they've been pushing the "spontaneous protest" line for more than a week, despite reams of evidence and basic common sense.  Nine days into this disaster, the truth emerges:
 

Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.  "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. 

Recommended

That Civil War Movie Is a Symptom of Hollywood’s Problems Kurt Schlichter

Advertisement

A Libyan security guard who said he was at the U.S. consulate here when it was attacked Tuesday night has provided new evidence that the assault on the compound that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was a planned attack by armed Islamists and not the outgrowth of a protest over an online video that mocks Islam and its founder, the Prophet Muhammad. The guard, interviewed Thursday in the hospital where he is being treated for five shrapnel wounds in one leg and two bullet wounds in the other, said that the consulate area was quiet – “there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.

That was yesterday, for the record.  Pathetic.  Door (3), which is a variant of the first theory: The security meltdown was so comprehensive and indefensible that pretending it was part of a sudden riot might muddy the waters a little bit.  The anti-Islam film flap would at least a part of that story, blunting the impact of, say, reports like this:
 

According to a source close to Breitbart News and high up in the intelligence community, the Obama administration's policy following Muammar Gaddafi's death has been to keep a "low profile" during a chaotic time. For this reason, according to the source, American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a "low profile," the administration didn't even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the "no bullets" Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE. In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others.

Yeah, let's keep a no-Marines, "low profile, no bullets" policy in place, and maybe the jihadis will forget where exactly they left that explosive device back in June.  Great plan, guys.  Incidentally, who made that no-Marines decision anyway?  Don't ask the White House:
 

“I think I would refer you for questions about security at the Benghazi diplomatic facility and broadly speaking at diplomatic facilities, consulates, and embassies around the world to the State Department.”

Ask State, not us.  But as we reported over the weekend, the State Department has announced it won't answer any questions about the Benghazi bloodbath.  Allahpundit summarizes:  "If you want to know what happened at Benghazi, ask State. But State won’t talk about it, so ask the FBI. But the FBI can’t talk about it because it’s an ongoing investigation.  Perfection."  But what about Romney's gaffes?!