Samira wrote:
And that speaks to the problem I have with all of this: information gathered in the immediate wake of a crisis is going to be incomplete and sometimes contradictory. That's not conspiracy, that's life.
Sure. But when the incomplete data is later filled in with data that is false, then it does lead one to question how false information got added to the mix. And when said false information just happens to deflect the narrative of the event in question in a direction that is politically beneficial for a President in the middle of a re-election campaign, it's not silly at all to think that there might be a political motivation for that false information and that it was inserted for the benefit of said President by people who knew it was false but wanted the people to believe it was true.
How did we go from day one where everyone in the know about the event knew it had nothing to do with the video, or protests in other locations, to 3 days later where the official story (written in an intelligence briefing no less) said it was a direct result of that video? That doesn't happen by accident. The claim was just so laughable even at the time that it's hard to believe any actual intelligence analyst generated it as a result of any data from the field. It had to have come from a political source. And yeah, fair or not Clinton is neck deep in the whole mess.