Secondly, I see this for what it is. It's nothing more than attempt to smear Hillary in the run up to 2016. In my opinion, if people cared at all about a "cover-up," they would be comparing it to the run up to 9/11 when George Bush ignored countless warnings about an imminent attack. That attack resulted in more than 3000 citizens being killed, and there was none of this hysteria.
Lastly, whether the president or Hillary called it a "terrorist attack" on the first day, the third day, or the 5th day is irrelevant. There was no evidence (and despite millions spent by the republicans to prove that it was), to suggest that it was ever anything more than an attempt to get all of the information before labeling it a terrorist attack. I would much rather have a president who is thorough than one who stands on the deck of an aircraft declaring "mission accomplished" long before the mission is actually accomplished.
And on an unrelated note, if my posts make you angry, just skip over them. It's only Topix.
Why do you think you are more believable than anyone else? Like you aren't biased.