re: #58 AntonSirius

Right, but no one (well, no one whose head isn’t up their own ass) is disputing that there was an anti-video demonstration. The CIA is saying that the demonstration was used as cover for a planned attack.

Heck, look at this paragraph from that very same Oct 15 NYT piece:

You’re right, it’d be great to see something of those reports Petraeus was apparently talking about that “disproved” the theory that the attack was solely a product of the demonstration. But I doubt he just invented them.

But now we’re just getting into the technicalities of it all, which is a losing prospect for the GOP. Saying “Well yeah, there was a demonstration, but…!” pretty much takes an axe to the argument that the administration “lied.” If there was a demonstration that was being used as cover, and the initial assessment was that the attack couldn’t be proven as terrorist in nature without burning valuable intelligence assets, then saying “We believe the video was the motivation” is not a “lie.”