But I recall seeing on TV a map of Eurasia with red dots for every embassy attacked. I didn't count them, but there were a lot of them. There were even some in Europe, carried out by Muslims living in Europe. There were demonstrations at US embassies as far away as India and Indonesia. Not all these incidents involved fighting, some may have been peaceful, or quickly contained by local authorities, but we didn't know that until days later when things finally got sorted out. The first few days it must have been mass confusion in the "war room".

Of course, not all were deadly. They were just demonstrations, marches, street riots, clashes with local police, slogan sprayings on walls, flag burnings, that sort of thing. People were killed in fighting with police, but no embassy personell were hurt anywhere, except in Libya.

Everyone was pissed about the video, the Islamist websites were all yakking about it, why else would all those people be rioting at the same time, and yet no Americans killed except in Benghazi? Remember, the first riot was in Egypt. The next day they were all over the mid-east, including Libya.

This is why I couldn't understand why the GOP was leaning on Rice and Obama. Nobody knew what the hell was really going on, Romney sure as hell got it wrong.

In my opinion, the Libya attack was almost certainly planned by Islamists to coincide with Sept 11. But there was rioting, and later, looting at Benghazi, too. The situation was very confused. As for the other attacks, if they had been organized by the same outfit, you would have seen military forces involved like in Libya. That was the only place where RPGs, heavy MGs, pickups full of trained fighters, etc were involved.