REPUBLICANS CREATE FALSE CHARGE AGAINST PRES. BARACK OBAMA ON LIBYA

The Romney campaign, and Republicans in general, seem to think that there is a smoking gun to be found in the administration's handling of the Benghazi tragedy.  The story line appears to be that Obama is hiding his own incompetence in not immediately recognizing that the attack and killing of the American ambassador on September 11th was an act of terrorists that had nothing to do with the furor that erupted in the Islamic world over a perceived insult to the prophet Muhammad in a video made by an Egyptian-American in California.

But Scott Shane reports in The New York Times today that the administration at first did not have intelligence information that the attack was a jihadi attack, but rather one connected to protests over the anti-Muhammad film.  Furthermore, intelligence reported that some of the attackers claimed to bystanders that they were angry because of the film.

Reports Shane:

"According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place."

 

Given this information, it is no wonder that administration officials, like Susan Rice, announced that the attack was connected to the video film.

 

Republicans are seeking an indictment of Pres. Barack Obama, without any real evidence or basis.  This shows their desperation, in their quest to win the presidential election coming up in three weeks.

STOP DRUM BEATS OF WAR AGAINST IRAN!

Scott Shane writes in today's The New York Times about the seemingly ineluctable American march to war against Iran.

Writes Shane:

"Israel’s stance has played out politically in the United States. With the notable exception of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Republican presidential candidates have kept up a competition in threatening Iran and portraying themselves as protectors of Israel. A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday released a letter to President Obama saying that new talks could prove a “dangerous distraction,” allowing Iran to buy time to move closer to developing a weapon."

But even more disheartening are the statistics cited by Shane showing most Americans would approve a U.S. attack against Iran. 

"Despite a decade of war, most Americans seem to endorse the politicians’ martial spirit. In a Pew Research Center poll this month, 58 percent of those surveyed said the United States should use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only 30 percent said no.

"I find it puzzling,” said Richard K. Betts of Columbia University, who has studied security threats since the cold war. “You’d think there would be an instinctive reason to hold back after two bloody noses in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

We must reverse this American blood lust for more war.  The public needs to know that there is no credible proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.  We should be friends with Iran and Iranians, not enemies about to drop thousand-pound bombs.