I wrote a complete blog questioning why no one in the Obama administration ever mentioned Bayes Theorem in regard to who killed our four citizens, a mob or terrorists. If Obama was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would have said some thing like this. "We are assuming that the killings were done by terrorists until we have proof otherwise." Had he done this, it would have set in motion a plan to find the terrorists. If he concluded that it was a mob, who would he go after? Another way to look at it. Which pick could he recover from most easily or with the least risk? Isn't it clear that if he had gone with terrorist that it would be very easy to later conclude that it was a mob. By going with the mob, motivated by a US citizen exercising his rights of free speech, what would be Obama's possible action? He could not go after the mod and he could not go after the US citizen exercising his right of free speech. The only way that I can figure this one is that he did not want to take any action and was willing, on that basis, to take the risk that he would be seen as incompetent or dishonest. Do you see it any other way?
If you read my blog about Bayes Theorem, you would know that going in without any specific knowledge about who kill our four citizens that it is far more likely that it was terrorists. Bayes Theorem provides that on that basis you would need a lot less data to go with it being terrorists than it would to go with the mob to have the same level of confidence in your conclusion being correct. Even if you never heard of Bayes Theorem, you would have to admit to the logic of the above.
By not using Bayes Theorem, Obama has shown himself to be either incompetent or dishonest. I don't see how there is any other conclusion. In the debate, Obama claimed that he called it terrorist the next day, but the way he parsed his words, even that looks doubtful. The fact that he let our UN
Secretary go on all those TV show the way she did shows that he has no concern for the truth or the reputation and integrity of others. Further, when he spoke to the UN, he was still telling everyone that he had concluded that it was a mob 12 days later.
You may ask, why anyone needs to know about Bayes Theorem? By just asking the question, you identify yourself as one of our typical high school and college graduates. You think you know all kinds of things, but you can't seem to figure out how to do "word problems". Think about it. Life is not data or facts, it is a "word problem".
PS-----Isn't it interesting that our Ambassador was on the phone with the State Department as the terrorist raid was taking place, yet Obama was never told so that he had "Plausible Deniability". Who called Tripoli and asked that help be sent? Why didn't Obama claim that Eskimos killed our Ambassador. Since he had "zero" information, anything was possible. If you had a robber in your home and you called Obama, how long do you think it would take before he would send help? Can you trust Obama protect your family? How about the whole country?
