You know, when you read a headline like this, that the smell of politics at its worst is to follow:
"Harry Reid defends Susan Rice, White House on Libya"
There are only two legitimate ways to assess the position(s) that Rice and her bosses maintained long after the entire world adopted the understanding that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi came at the hands of Islamist terrorists - either Rice et al. were lying or they are grossly incompetent. The entire planet knew what the Obama administration didn't? Please.
But here's Harry Reid, a man who never understood that George Washington line - "It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one”:
“In order to inform the American people, the Obama administration, including Ambassador Rice, reported the preliminary information they had after the attack, despite the uncertain nature of intelligence in the fog of battle, and have responsibly updated the American public as new details have emerged.”
Pathetic. And embarrassing.
Only problem is, Obama and Hillary and Rice were sticking to their original propaganda - in public - long after it was known to be false. The attack took place on September 11. By the 14th, it was becoming clear that the attack was planned, coordinated, and launched with some precision and military-like force.
Yet a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stuck with the party line: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Post in Benghazi was planned or imminent."
That pronouncement - along with those of Rice (on the 16th), Hillary, and Obama - was scoffed at even by the Libyans.
You'd think that Harry Reid, a dolt who should have been able to grasp Proverbs 17:28 by now, would have stayed away from this controversy. But no. He had to do that for which he's best known.
Not smart, old man.
- - -
"The uncertain nature of intelligence in the fog of battle." There was no battle. It was slaughter, pure and simple.