Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The NYT reporting asserts the attackers themselves were in part motivated by the anti-Islam video. You can't say there's no evidence of this as you don't really know.
The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.
The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process.
There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.
Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.
-spence
|
So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?