No, I don't think that's true at all. What don't you think is true?
Here's a hint -- news organizations are not FBI investigators.
No one is saying that FBI investigators should read the news to conduct their investigations. That is just you trying to change the conversation.
The point was that it was so obvious that the administration wasn't being straightforward to the American people when they were claiming that a youtube video was the cause of the attack. There was no evidence of it and the explanation to the American people was completely false. You can argue all you want that the investigation wasn't complete, but that didn't stop the administration from throwing out false information for several weeks.
The fact of the matter is the Administration was misleading the American public. You can't dispute that. You can argue how and why, if it was intentional or not. If you want to argue that there was such a intelligence failure that Obama would have been better off listening to those guys over at "Faux" News, then knock yourself out, because that is essentially what you are inferring.
So what is it? Why was the administration sticking with their story, even though it was evident to numerous news organizations the next day that their story was bull?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 7/11/12 18:19 (UTC)What don't you think is true?
Here's a hint -- news organizations are not FBI investigators.
No one is saying that FBI investigators should read the news to conduct their investigations. That is just you trying to change the conversation.
The point was that it was so obvious that the administration wasn't being straightforward to the American people when they were claiming that a youtube video was the cause of the attack. There was no evidence of it and the explanation to the American people was completely false. You can argue all you want that the investigation wasn't complete, but that didn't stop the administration from throwing out false information for several weeks.
The fact of the matter is the Administration was misleading the American public. You can't dispute that. You can argue how and why, if it was intentional or not. If you want to argue that there was such a intelligence failure that Obama would have been better off listening to those guys over at "Faux" News, then knock yourself out, because that is essentially what you are inferring.
So what is it? Why was the administration sticking with their story, even though it was evident to numerous news organizations the next day that their story was bull?