correction: I assumed that Juan Cole wrote this piece. Though I stand by my over-all concerns, I ought to be a bit more careful to whom I am addressing.
One further note. The accuracy or outright falsehoods promulgated by right-wing media outlets is irrelevant to the question of the truthfulness of the administration's public statements. The issue at hand is whether Susan Rice, and other administration officials spoke with due frankness when publicly discussing the events of that day.
To varying degrees, the media on the left and on the right will spin the story based on their own biases. That is a subject for another discussion.
I find this post rather political in nature, rather that than your customary emphasis on your expertise in Middle Eastern affairs.
Of particular note is the use of the phrase 'presumably accurate' in this sentence: 'Biden also repeated the administration’s rhetorically weak, but presumably accurate defense of its post-attack narrative of events: the administration could only report information as fast as the intelligence community provided it.'
As I commented to the author you link to in that sentence; there is ample reason to conclude, or at least highly suspect, based on accounts from senior administration sources, that the administration knew on day one that the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack. As such, you give Biden a pass where none was warranted.
More importantly, why have you chosen to be a 'blatant' partisan, (sympathetic though I may be in your politics) rather than maintaining your professional integrity as an expert on the Middle East.
correction: I assumed that Juan Cole wrote this piece. Though I stand by my over-all concerns, I ought to be a bit more careful to whom I am addressing.
One further note. The accuracy or outright falsehoods promulgated by right-wing media outlets is irrelevant to the question of the truthfulness of the administration's public statements. The issue at hand is whether Susan Rice, and other administration officials spoke with due frankness when publicly discussing the events of that day.
To varying degrees, the media on the left and on the right will spin the story based on their own biases. That is a subject for another discussion.
I find this post rather political in nature, rather that than your customary emphasis on your expertise in Middle Eastern affairs.
Of particular note is the use of the phrase 'presumably accurate' in this sentence: 'Biden also repeated the administration’s rhetorically weak, but presumably accurate defense of its post-attack narrative of events: the administration could only report information as fast as the intelligence community provided it.'
As I commented to the author you link to in that sentence; there is ample reason to conclude, or at least highly suspect, based on accounts from senior administration sources, that the administration knew on day one that the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack. As such, you give Biden a pass where none was warranted.
More importantly, why have you chosen to be a 'blatant' partisan, (sympathetic though I may be in your politics) rather than maintaining your professional integrity as an expert on the Middle East.