And you're buying that? Head in sand much?
Yeah, that Bush CIA analyst is a total tool, huh? Good thing you know better.
His statements that intelligence isn't perfect and we don't always know everything right off the bat are perfectly correct. This does not explain at all how 5 days after the attack, when it should have at least been understood that the attack was likely to have been a planned terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous event, Rice went on the talk shows saying the following:
Ambassador Rice wrote:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo
There is no way in **** that this statement can be true Joph. Intelligence isn't perfect, but it's not that stunningly imperfect either. She didn't "hedge her language" as your linked article mentions. She made a straight out statement of facts that was simply not true. And not just something that we found out wasn't true later, but something that demonstrably was known to be false at the time. So either she just made stuff up on her own (unlikely given her position and job), or someone told her that was the official statement she was to give that day.
And that means an attempt to lie to the American people by the highest levels of the Obama administration. And it's why there are hearings going on right now. Yes, part of it is about security at the Embassies and whether they should have known an attack was coming. But the bigger part is whether the Obama Administration deliberately attempted to downplay the attack to make it seem like it was not an organized and planned act of terrorism and did so by directing ambassador Rice to make statements which they knew were not true.
Because that's a pretty big deal.