So nobody wants to address that our presence there was almost certainly primarily an intelligence operation, weird stuff happens in intelligence operations, and we don’t always get the full story because making covert stuff public can endanger our officers, our informants and our mission?
Check out the recent Washington Post series on drones and covert warfare. I’m not a huge fan of the fact that our intelligence agencies have become agents of war, conducting targeted killings, running air bases and otherwise operating as a military. In fact, I think that endangers our civilians by making their offices seem like a legit target. But it is what it is.
Anyway I have no idea what was going on in Benghazi. My guess is that the office was on the edge of putting something into action that was shady but in our interest, something went wrong and they got attacked, this left a lot of potentially dangerous loose ends that would cause trouble if they were uncovered, and the BS story was to buy time to put stuff in order before the inevitable massive investigation.
Thanks for the correction. I could of sworn I read that the administration asked google twice to take down the video but after looking over all the articles I couldn’t find anything that said that.
I must have got that confused when an article said that youtube had already viewed the video and not found it violating it’s terms, and thought that meant that the initial review was prompted by the administration.