Blame Media...Specifically, YouTube

Based on the information available, it is unclear why the Obama administration would have chosen to actively avoid acknowledging the likely possibility that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

Sure, Obama used the words “act of terror” once in a sentence during an initial statement surrounding the event, but his administration specifically dodged owning such an assessment for at least 14 days afterwards (or rather after-words).

Such active avoidance was purposeful, but no one in the Obama administration will take responsibility to expose or own that purpose. Who made the decision to actively avoid acknowledging terrorism as the culprit, vice the video, and why?

The mainstream media’s satisfaction with the Obama administration’s Benghazi narrative is confounding.

During Abu Ghraid, the mainstream media frothed at the mouth at the opportunity to scandalously tie to the highest levels of the Bush Administration the unquestionably despicable behavior performed at the lowest levels of the military.

In contrast, with respect to Benghazi the mainstream media has refused to ferret out what the administration knew, absolved the administration of what it should have known, and have responded to the administration’s deplorable lack of answers with an equally deplorable lack of questions.

Discerning Americans cannot help but wonder how Obama’s international policy plays into the big picture.

Was it the video; a video expressing one crackpot’s opinion? Could a YouTube video really cause such turmoil?

If a simple video could spark regional unrest and instability, empowering our adversaries to strike out at our diplomatic representatives, I’d hate to think what damage could be done by the policies of a U.S. President who is more comfortable denigrating U.S. intent and integrity than acknowledging terrorism or Islamic extremism.

Maybe that’s what made the President and his media advocates so intent and content to blame the video.