Write-in Throw Outs: A Conservative Christian Perspective of Third Party Votes

Often when I write, I write with a political perspective and I leave the spiritual out of it. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this is one time I’m making an exception to the rule.
    There are more than a few Christians making the argument for a third-party or write-in vote. Usually this is morally justified as being the best option and not voting for someone who they believe to be morally inferior—or by avoiding the “lesser of two evils” situation. While this sounds fine there’s a few truths that aren’t generally taken into account.
    First, we’re electing a president not a pastor as one minister put it. The leader we are electing is a secular, governmental, leader. For reasons not discussed here, God consistently differentiates between spiritual and governmental authority. (See also Uzziah).
    Additionally, Christians talk a lot about stewardship. The idea of stewardship is that one is responsible to God for the things one can control. The truth is that electing a write-in candidate or a third party candidate is not within the control of the believer. Nearly any traditional Christian would argue that Barack Obama has been a model of bad stewardship on nearly every front. The question is whether said Christians will exercise their own stewardship to oust a bad leader when God gives them the option. I argue they should.
    Given that Christians are typically more conservative, the argument is easily made that a third-party write in does not deny Barack Obama support—rather it denies him opposition. The conservative Christian vote was never for Obama, but it could be against him. Voting third party takes away that opposition, thus a conservative or libertarian write-in vote helps Barack Obama, the epitome of the very mindset conservatives and libertarians despise. Shouldn’t Christians instead oppose a leader with godless and bad stewardship habits when God gives them the legal authority to do so? Again, I argue they should.
    “Well I don’t like Mitt Romney, and I don’t like Barack either. I’m voting 3rd party to voice my discontent!” This is no doubt a tempting route for many. But the truth is that such a vote is, a) a complaint (see Phi 2:14), and b) a vote that doesn’t change anything. Christians are called to be salt and light, that is to stand against darkness and corruption. The corruption in the current administration is easily demonstrable—look no further than Libya, Solyndra, or another 50 companies that were invested in because they were pals to the president—not because they were an honest deal for American taxpayers. Again, the question is to stand against Obama's corruption or not.
    “I don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils!”
This fallacy is predicated on the assumption that the desired candidate (third party/write in) isn’t evil, when in fact, they are. Ron Paul is an evil man. So is Gary Johnson. So are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They’re all men. To be evil is their nature aside from grace. The truth is there is no perfect candidate and to get caught up in this trap is to deny that all men are evil. No matter who runs, the choice between two humans will always come down to the lesser of two evils.
    As far as the "cause" is concerned, the libertarian cause isn’t completely justifiable biblically, and neither is the GOP cause. Their particular blindness is to suggest that America can be restored to its early 1800s greatness. But this simply isn't possible. America is a different country demographically. American is also a different country governmentally. Ronald Reagan said that government never voluntarily reduces itself. It simply grows till, like a morbidly obese person, it collapses under its own weight and ceases to move. The simple ingredients for a 1776 America are long gone. The Americans of the past wanted to build their lives from the ground up. Today, they want their lives subsidized from the top down.
    The time has come to face the facts: we’re not going back. Simply put, we can’t go back. Mitt Romney isn’t ideal, and he’s not perfect. But he isn’t Barack Obama, and he is the only alternative at this point. Talk about Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or whichever candidate all you wish but realize this: God has let only these two choices fall before us. The only question to answer is “will you stand against the corruption of Barack Obama?” If not, please don’t complain about the next four years.
    (Post-Note: The other issue with the grand “Restoration of America” is that it is ultimately is blind to the issue of Biblical prophecy. The words, “In the last days…” are rarely if ever followed by a description of humans getting more godly. The last days are not described as a time when people return to sanity and reason—rather it is a time when they depart from both. The grandiose “Restoration of America” from a libertarian standpoint is not generally preceded by the idea of revival. But unless hearts change the nation will not change. But the Bible is clear that the last days are filled with cold hearts. Cold hearts will not return to 1776, nor anytime near it. Only hearts aflame follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and all the other great americans we admire. Those hearts are dying off. The good news is that they are being collected, and kept, for the Day when all things are set right. Thus we set no hope in Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. We set hope in Christ alone, for that Day alone.)

Write it in and throw it out: Third Party Futility

-->

            As we’re down to two candidates many people aren’t happy about their two choices. Many on the right side of the aisle are writing in votes for candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. They claim it’s their right, and it is. However, they usually justify it with a statement such as, “I’m voting with my conscience and with my morals. I just can’t justify voting for Mitt Romney.” But there’s another factor to consider, and possibly an untended outcome to boot.

            Any self-respecting libertarian or conservative-minded independent despises Barack Obama. Libertarians are about less government, and less heavy-authority from DC. Barack is the epitome of both—a power-wielding figure with more executive orders than the last dozen or more presidents combined. Grab any 10 people from the right side of the spectrum and while they may disagree on a plethora of issues, the one they would all unite on is this: Obama is a bad president. And all would agree that he’s got to go.

            The truth is though that when a third-party candidate gets the vote it doesn’t further the cause of firing Barack Obama. Consider this: if you are a Johnson/Paul/other fan and/or voter, you were never in the 45-49% that will almost certainly vote for Barack Obama. Obama never had your vote, and he never will – you never counted as a possibility for him. You can’t take away from him that which he never had. Your vote, and the vote of those like you never counted towards Barack’s hope of reelection. A far more conservative candidate had your vote from the word go. Which candidate is another story, but you are in the pool of voters who are right-of-center—a pool that desperate wants to stop Barack Obama.

            But a write in/third party vote takes you out of that same pool. If 52% of the nation is willing to vote GOP/right wing/conservative, any vote for a third party is to remove oneself from that 52%. In other words, you remove your support from stopping Barack Obama at a second term. You remove yourself from the pool of voters that want to stop his agenda. Your vote becomes useless, and worthless in a practical sense. Sitting out based on conscience only serves to further the agenda of the mindset you find most offensive. It’s a statement falling on deaf ears. It is to refuse to fight against the thing your conscience hates most. Refusing to fight might as well be a nod of silent assent.

            “But Romney is just Bush III!” No, no he’s not. That’s a sweeping generalization—a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a very different man, from a very different background. Making the case that Romney = Obama is equally an argument from ignorance. It misses the true nature of who Obama is, what he’s done, and what he will do during a second term.

            The truth is that Romney is not The Great Fixxer—he’s more like the Great Delayer of Trouble. To my libertarian friends I say this: there is no going back. America is demographically different than it was in 1776. America is governmentally different than it was in 1776. We are not the same nation. Our borders, language, and culture are not what they were—even 65 years ago much less 200 years ago. Ronald Reagan and the Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially tell us the same thing: governmental mess cannot be unmade. The government simply cannot and will not be reformed to those ancient (and appropriate) levels. But taking a stand for nothing is not the answer. Voting third party is to lodge a complaint against Mitt Romney, but then to do nothing about it. It’s a complaint that offers no answers, and no solutions. Standing with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is not standing against Barack Obama—it’s standing against Mitt Romney. Standing against Mitt Romney is standing for the incumbent President. You aren’t denying Obama support—you are denying him opposition.

Is that really what your conscience wants?

Much to Gain, Little to Lose: Debate Three

            Mitt Romney and Barakc Obama square off for the third time on Monday night. Sorry Monday Night Football, but there’s a bigger fight in town. The debate will air live from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida and focus solely on foreign policy. Truth is, this one is a boon to Mitt Romney.

            The last three debates have all been interesting. This one should be no different. Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to hammer the President on this subject, and take little damage himself. Barack Obama bungled the Arab Spring, Egypt, and now Libya. The beauty of the situation for Mitt is that he can play offense all evening long. He can attack Barack on Iran, Afghanistan, Benghazi and so on. Mitt’s offensive attacks have the potential to make Monday a devastating evening for Barack Obama’s polls numbers, which are sinking daily.
            The dirty little secret here is of course that Barack doesn’t have many offensive options. In fact, he’s only got one: Mitt Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience. The parry to this attack is simple: “Neither did you Mr. President, and you’ve made a mess. Who are you to tell the American People that I’ll be worse?” Obama can and will at least try to attack Mitt Romney, but the truth is that Mitt has next to nothing to defend—and he’s got lots of attack options. It wasn’t Mitt that blew the last 4 years of foreign policy—it was Barack Obama. Mitt doesn’t need to give an account for anything. Barack needs to give an account for everything.

            In short, this debate it Mitt’s to lose. He stumbled a little last debate on Libya, but with some good prep time and newly minted attacks he could leave the viewers marveling at the mistakes Obama has made. Mitt needs to own the counter attacks, destroy excuses, and use the verifiable truth. He also needs to be prepared to push back at the moderator should it come down to it. For Mitt, the facts and data that have been uncovered since September 11 are all the ammo he needs. If he blows this, he’ll have no one to blame but himself. If he wins it handily Barack Obama better hope for a miracle. He’ll certainly need it.

Where Did the 47% Go?

 Mitt Romney’s little gaffe involving a remark about 47% of voters he supposedly “doesn’t care about” was MIA during Wednesday’s debate. It was supposed to be Obama’s biggest bullet and it was noticeably absent, which came as a shock to O’Reilly, Rasmussen, Gutfeld, Krauthammer, and other pundits. Everyone's got a theory as to why this didn't happen. My thoughts on this are because maybe:

-       Obama didn’t use it because it was a clean fight and he didn’t want to be the first to bring the mud…(“look who just got nasty first”)

-       And/or he felt like starting the mud-slinging meant that more would come back and he didn’t want to answer for his own mud… (“Let’s talk about your video at Jeremiah Wright’s church”)

-       Obama felt like Mitt was doing well enough that he could defeat the attack on the 47%, and Obama would have attacked in vain. Mitt was on his game and could simply roll right over it, and thus render future “47%” usage pointless. ("Didn't we talk about this last time?")

-       Obama felt like the first debate was a wash anyway, (and historically this is true), so why waste a good attack on a lost cause?

It's possibly that many of these reasons come down to a conscious choice on Barack’s part to leave it alone. If so, why? Because it would have hurt him more than it helped him. Whether this is by means of missing the mark entirely, starting a fight that was more damaging than successful, or wasting a good attack…well, who knows? But the honest truth is that it’s potentially a great attack. Given Obama’s position, the urge to use it next time has got to be pretty strong. Obama needs to perfect the attack (simply mentioning “the 47%” won’t cut it), and Romney needs a killer deflection and an even better counter attack. So expect to see attempts for each of these strategies from each contender next time in Kentucky—because after that the shelf life may leave the issue a bit stale. If Obama mentions it on the 16^th it will be three, maybe even four weeks old at the time—which is an eternity in our ADD culture. Obama has to use it or lose it, and it’s possible that the expiration date is looming for him. Either way, Mitt should be beyond prepared for the question and Barack better make it a good one. Odds are, you’ll see it on the 16^th or not at all.

It’s a win but...

            Mitt Romney scored big against Barack Obama in the first of three rounds of presidential debates. Even between libs and the GOP the general consensus is that Romney won. There needn’t be any huge argument about it—simply follow a lot of big democrats on Twitter and the blogosphere and the answer is obvious. Even the DNC painted that this could very well happen and Obama himself alluded to such a possibility a few days ago.

            Notable points, both verbal and non-verbal include:

-       Mitt using humor more successfully

-       Obama’s constant (though not complete) refusal to look at Mitt Romney

-       Mitt’s focus, versus Obama’s tangents

-       Obama’s stutter and slow moments (which is characteristic of his speech—not a slight on him, but this mannerism certainly didn’t help)

-       Mitt handled the moderator well (refusal to be bullied) while Obama did not—some are arguing that Obama snapped at Lehrer once or twice.

-       Obama tried to invoke the power of math, Romney invoked actual numbers—often and with relevance.

-       Mitt owned the counterattacks.

-       Obama is not a great speaker under pressure, off the cuff.

-       Mitt was on offense all night, and Barack never got a chance

-       Obama was more general. Mitt was more specific.

-       Romney was having fun. Barack was not.

All this being said, there’s some notable things to discuss. First, as the DNC put it (and yes it’s spin, but it’s got some truth), Romney was historically in a good spot to win this one—which he did. Barack was ill-prepared—as one Reuters commentator told Greta van Susteren: “I recognized the President’s performance tonight—the same one I had in college when I felt like I didn’t need to study for an English exam because I already knew English.” Perhaps Obama prepared the wrong way, and expected the wrong attacks. Perhaps. But it’s highly arguable that he won’t make that same mistake twice. Conversely, Romney knew Obama’s playbook and had done his own research and study. When Obama called upon the power of the almighty Independent Study, Mitt knew which one and had 4 more that said something different. Love him or hate him, Mitt wasn’t lucky—he was prepared.

Also of note is how clean the fight was. Romney didn’t mention Barack’s newly surfaced videos, or questionable friends (Wright, Ayers, etc), and neither did Obama mention the “47%” remark or Bain Capital. Some of these attacks might have fit into the debate context, but the two seemed to be quite content hitting each other above the belt. Again, this may not happen next time. Obama likely feels the need for an “edge” and the “47%” or Bain might be appealing as a way to get that edge. (Of course this opens the possibility that Mitt could do that exact same thing to keep his edge). Either way, Romney should be prepared—Obama never really got his offense going tonight, and he’ll want to taste blood during the next debate. Mitt should be ready to dodge some fast punches in 13 days.

Now that Obama knows how Mitt will fight, he’s going to work on his technique. First round to the challenger—certainly…but there are two debates to go. If Mitt wants to keep this up, he needs a decisive victory over the next two debates. While Obama has prep time to analyze Mitt’s attacks and plan his own, Romney has to plan his deflections and counterattack.

Among other things here’s a shortlist of points not pressed, not touched upon, and possibly to be used and considered for next time:

-       Romney ran a terrific offense—he was at his best. Can he keep being his best?

-       Lehrer was honestly a weak moderator. Compared to Obama’s own flat performance and a helpless moderator, Romney couldn’t help but look strong. The moderator next time may not be such a push over.

-       Obama should hit and even belabor the points where he feels strong—this may help keep Romney out of the groove and run the clock down.

-       Mitt’s 47% and Obama’s little race video might pop up. Both need attacks and both need parries and deflections.

-       When ObamaCare resurfaces (as it will) Mitt can easily win the point with one line: “ObamaCare needs to be repealed because the people want it repealed and the majority of Americans don’t support it—even though the President and a democrat congress rammed it through.” In this way Mitt can defend RomneyCare and attack ObamaCare.

-       Mitt should use Libya as evidence of a failed foreign policy. This is going to be a tough plot of beans to defend for Obama—because Libya has “botched” and “scandal” written all over it like obscene words in a bathroom stall.

-       Neither one can afford to let the other get in the groove first. Obama was on his heels 97% of the night. He doesn’t like that feeling—so he’s going to try to "return to sender". Mitt’s job is make sure Obama stays on his heels.

All in all, the debate definitively went well for Romney, and the win was certainly needed. But his excellent performance needs to be repeated, and then repeated again. Obama must go on heavy offense now, but with the additional topics coming up Mitt has little to lose on foreign policy and Barack has little to gain. Additionally Obama is a bit behind on financial issues as well. Even so, it’s arguable that the advantage is still to Obama, as the safe alternative to Mitt Romney. If Mitt wins next time Barack will definitely be behind the count—and he may not recover. It’s still anyone’s game, but Romney made a decisive point to be everything he needed to be. If he keeps it up he’ll likely have two more wins—and possibly a presidency in his pocket. Still, it’s not a one-man show and Obama wants to retain his seat of power for as long as he can. Part of Mitt winning involves Obama losing, and that’s something the president won’t give up easily.

Fight Night in Denver: Romney’s Big Chance

            One of the best quotes about Mitt Romney’s debate performance comes from Rush Limbaugh. During the GOP primaries Limbaugh said, “Mitt Romney does not win debates. He survives them.” Back during the primaries survival was good enough. Newt wowed crowds once or twice, but otherwise fell flat. Ron Paul’s disjointed rants and Rick Santorum’s obvious discomfort at the debates made for a constant “less than par” performance from these two contenders. Mitt simply had to show up, breathe air, and avoid eating his own shoes and he “won”.

            That won’t cut it two days from now in Denver. There will be no passive victories in this fight. While Rick, Ron, and Newt all died on the mat from self-inflicted blood loss Obama will do no such thing. Mitt simply remaining standing will not motivate the 15% in the middle who will swing this election one way or the other. Mitt will have to not only get on offense, but to do so with uncharacteristic aggressiveness. Obama’s overall approval is largely negative at this point, so if the middle sees someone that can and will bloody Obama in the debates they may respond very favorably to a contender with a strong voice and a definitive message.

            The DNC has outright stated that historically the challenger usually wins the first debate—possibly in an effort to do preemptive damage control for the president and bank on a weak Romney follow up debate performance. For Romney the challenge isn’t to “win” per se as a “win” may not cut it. His challenge will be to establish a pattern of effective, aggressive offense on Obama’s record, and thus generate momentum going into the next two debates. Providing Romney does his job well in the debates, Obama should be in shock by the end of the first debate, sputtering angrily at the end of the second, and dazed, punch-drunk and looking for an exit by the third. If Obama looks lost and outgunned he’ll look like a poor choice for a leader—and that’s Mitt’s goal. Unfortunately for Mitt, that kind of unprecedented result will take an unprecedented performance on his own part. Mitt has a great opportunity in Denver with the “challenger” advantage, and Obama’s record for ammo. If he fails to capitalize on this first round, the undecided may be too busy following reality TV to give Mitt another chance to make his case. He might not have enough time left to strike out and do serious damage to Obama in the eyes of the undecided voter. Mitt won the GOP primaries arguably because he was “safe” compared to his competition. But now the tables are turned, and it is Obama who is the “safe” candidate. For Mitt Romney, it is time to be dangerous. Nothing less than success will do, and if Romney fails, time, and history may not forgive him for it come November.

"I know what you did in Libya this summer..."

Libya…simplified

            In todays world news is updated by the second, and with multiple stories flying through the internet on a minute-by-minute basis it’s easy to lose track.

One of the most important stories of the month, and of the year (in terms of the election and foreign policy) is of course the mess in Libya. The following is a time line approach to the Libyan events with a few thoughts on how and why certain events happened. It is my firm belief that the average voter does not understand what happened or why it’s significant or what it means. So let’s start at the beginning—not September 11, but in the days and weeks leading up to the attack.

Each note will have a source link for verification.

April/May/June: The US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is targeted by Islamic terrorists. The House Intelligence Committee chair says the consulate was targeted for an IED attack. ³

June 6: An IED is thrown at the American Consulate in Benghazi.^{3, 12}

June 11: The British Ambassador is the target in an RPG attack^{3, 12}

July, and August 2012: American Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens writes in his journal about his concerns over security threats, possible attacks, and being on an Al-Qaeda hitlist.^{1, 16} These fears proved to be well-founded in light of events in June and early August. (See also 12).

August 5: The Red Cross building in Benghazi is struck by an RPG attack.³

September 8: Libyan officials meet with the American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, and warn them that the situation there is “deteriorating” and “frightening”. ² Officials later say that this wasn’t the first time they warned Americans about impending attacks.²

September 10: Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman.⁶

September 11: Around 4 PM local time the US Embassy in Cairo is stormed by protestors and the American flag is taken down and possibly burned. It is replaced by the black flag of Islam.⁹

The compound in Benghazi is attacked. News outlets report that witnesses say the compound was quiet before the attack: there were no protestors.^{8, 16} President Obama is briefed an hour and a half after the attack begins. The ambassador is missing during the attack. President Obama goes to bed while his ambassador’s fate is unknown.⁴

The Libyan guard at the gate is armed with a radio and the attackers with machine guns and RPGs. The compound is eventually set on fire.⁵

September 11/12: The Ambassador Stevens is discovered alive—though just barely—and taken to a hospital by looters going through the US Consulate.^{2 (video)}

The ambassador dies either en route or possibly later at the hospital. A Lebanese news outlet reports that he had been raped and dragged through the streets. This is still neither confirmed nor debunked.⁷

September 11/12: Around 12-2 A.M. another attack is made on remaining American personnel in the compound. The attack is described as “complex . . . sophisticated . . . an ambush.” It is suspected that during this attack the two American security personnel, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed. By 6:30 A.M. the evacuation of American personnel is complete.⁸

September 12: WH Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, “Why did the President feel it was so important to continue with his campaign schedule today?” Carney insists the President is receiving briefings on the road from the intelligence community he travels with.¹⁸

September 13: Obama cancels intel briefing as the riots continue and heads to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.⁹ Some information persists that the President did not often attend intel briefings in the days leading up to the attack, but it is highly unlikely that said information could or would be confirmed or debunked. One fact remains: the spokesman for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor refused to answer whether the president has attended any of his daily briefings since September 5.⁹

September 14: Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Senator John McCain both call the attack, “planned” and “premeditated”.¹² McCain added that, "People don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons," he said, adding that the facts suggest "this was not a 'mob' action [or] a group of protesters."¹²

CNN Reports State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy alluded to the attack being preplanned by the amount of light and medium weaponry on the scene.
The site reported that the remarks had been made earlier in the week (IE the 12^th or 13^th).²⁰

The same day, WH Press Secretary Jay Carny says there was no intelligence suggesting an attack, and “we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”¹³ Carney blames the Innocence of Muslims video as what “sparked” the outcry. When asked if they would apologize for the video Carney says, “Absolutely not . . . we have said we find it offensive and reprehensible, but we will not -- we cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.”
Carney takes one final question that unfolds as follows:

Q:    Jay, one last question -- while we were sitting here -- Secretary Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee.  And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror.  Levin said -- Senator Levin -- I think it was a planned, premeditated attack.  The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack.  Is there anything more you can -- now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials.  Again, it's actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere.  And my point was that we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.

Carney does not use the word “terrorist” in his answer—or much at all in relation to the attacks during the course of the Q&A session.

September 16: US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice is hosted on CBS’ Face the Nation. She repeatedly calls the attack “spontaneous” and said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”¹⁰

On the same program, the president of Libya’s General National said, “The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”¹⁰

On Fox News Sunday, Susan Rice tells Chris Wallace that, “"a spontaneous incident."

"The best information we have today is that in fact this was not a premeditated attack," Rice said.¹⁵

50 Arrests are made in relation to the death of Ambassador Stevens by the Libyan government.²⁷

September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to label the strike. "I don't think we know enough," she said. "And we're going to continue to assess ... and then we'll be in a better position to put labels on things, OK?" ¹⁷

It’s reported that mortars were used in the strike on the compound and/or safe houses.¹⁴

September 18: WH Press Secretary refuses to say that there was enough (or not enough) security for the consulate in Banghazi.¹⁴ His answer is “They were numerous steps taken, as there have been every year on the anniversary of 9/11, and as there have been at different times on the calendar when it is judged by the experts that taking additional steps, security steps, is the right thing to do.”¹⁴

However Ambassador Stevens was known to “travel with a relatively small security detail.” ¹⁴ (Note how many Americans were killed, including the Ambassador. If the security team were say 10 men strong, it’s certain more would have been killed. There is some evidence suggesting that two other Americans (Woods and Doherty) were perhaps killed at a different time and location than Stevens.⁸ Does this leave just one man protecting Stevens?)

September 19: Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen called the strike in Libya a “terrorist attack”.¹⁷ Up until this day not one official has called the strike a “terrorist attack”.¹⁷ He also referred to Al-Qaeda as possibly being involved.¹⁹ (This seems to be significant because in the Senate hearing video I saw, Olsen was asked about this with a certain level of redundancy).

September 20: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally calls the events in Libya a terrorist attack—9 days later.¹¹

Carney has this exchange with reporters:
Q    Can you -- have you called it a terrorist attack before?  Have you said that?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t, but -- I mean, people attacked our embassy.  It’s an act of terror by definition.

Q    Yes, I just hadn’t heard you --

MR. CARNEY:  It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

Q    No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack.  And I just --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not -- as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area.  We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

He also pointed out that -- I’ll point out as well -- that the FBI investigation into this tragedy is ongoing, but according to the best information we have now, we believe it was an opportunistic attack on our mission in Benghazi.  It appears that some well-armed militants seized on the opportunity as the events unfolded that evening.  We do not have any specific intelligence that there was significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

September 22: One investigator tells a news outlet that the consulate was “staked out” and “monitored” before the attack—further discrediting the narrative that the attack was spontaneous. Reports of betrayal by Libyan security forces also emerge. ¹⁹

September 23: Obama speaks on 60 Minutes, calling recent events in the Middle East, “bumps in the road”.²¹ The four Americans have been buried less than two weeks.

The attack in Libya is called a huge setback for intel efforts in the region, and “a catastrophic intelligence loss”.²²

September 24: 50 detainess are cleared to leave Gitmo. Word surfaces that the attack may be been planned by ex-gitmo detainee. ²⁶

September 25: Senators demand that Sec of State Clinton show them the last messages (aka “cables”) from Ambassador Stevens.²³

Obama addresses the General Assembly of the UN saying that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”²⁴

After repeatedly of blaming “the video” for the attacks and having his staff blame the video, the President said it should be “marginalized” by being “ignored.”²⁵

September 26: NBC airs an exclusive interview with Libyan President Mohamed Magarief. Magarief says the video (which the Obama Administration constantly blames) had  "nothing to do with" the attack on the US consulate.28

Cited Sources:

-->

1 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/cnn-christopher-stevens-personal-journal-libya_n_1905650.html?ir=Media

2 – http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html

3 – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/diplomatic-western-posts-targeted-repeatedly-in-benghazi-in-run-up-to-deadly/

4 – http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/obama-knew-about-benghazi-terror-attacks-three-hours-after-they-began-went-to-bed-video/

5 – http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

6 – http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/09/17/entertainer-in-chief-to-visit-david-letterman-again-

7 – http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

8 – http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/timeline-benghazi-attacks/57124/

9 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-alone-this-president-does-not-need-intel-briefers/2012/09/13/c11e1a52-fda5-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

10 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-the-attack-on-the-libya-consulate-planned-or-not/2012/09/16/6f1136be-0042-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html

11 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012

12 – http://www.rollcall.com/news/senators_question_leon_panetta_about_syria_libya-217594-1.html?zkMobileView=true

13 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-9142012

14 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-the-attack-on-the-libya-consulate-planned-or-not/2012/09/16/6f1136be-0042-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html

15 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/robert-gibbs-libya-fox_n_1907114.html

16 – http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0923/White-House-pressured-to-tell-more-about-Benghazi-attack

17 – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/20/carney-elf-evident-benghazi-attack-was-terrorism/

18 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-las-vegas-nv-9122012

19 – http://www.infowars.com/obamas-shaky-libya-narrative/ AND
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html

20 – http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/

21 – http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-says-obamas-bump-in-the-road-comment-is-revealing/

22 – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?_r=0

23 – http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/25/senators_to_clinton_show_us_the_aambassador_s_cables

24 – http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/25/obama-at-the-un-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-insult-the-prophet-of-islam/

25 – http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-view-marginalize-video-ignoring-it_653041.html

26 – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-qaeda-ex-gitmo-detainee-linked-libya-attack-u-s-consulate-report-article-1.1163284

27 – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513754/libyan-president-50-arrests-in-consulate-assault/

28 - http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite