Presidential debate: Do new reports on Libya change the story?
(Read article summary)Ahead of Monday's presidential debate on foreign policy, a new narrative is emerging about why the White House waited so long to describe the Sept. 11 attack in Libya as a terrorist attack.
Why did it take the Obama administration so long to describe the Sept. 11 attack that killed ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans as the work of organized Islamist insurgents?
That’s a central question bearing on whether President Obama is weak in foreign policy, as GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney charges. A clear picture of the behind-the-scenes action here may not emerge until histories are written years hence. But new reports on the eve of the third and final presidential debate suggest that at least some of the cause of the delay stemmed from the nature of intelligence community reports to the president on the tragedy.
Here’s what we know at the moment: On Sept. 16, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on five TV talk shows and generally ascribed the attack to the ad hoc action of mobs infuriated by a crude anti-Islamic video made in the US. She said evidence gathered to that point indicated no premeditation on the part of attackers, but she did add that “extremists” might have escalated the violence once it began.
