This is a different slant on the killings in Libya. We now know that it was not a mob, but organized terrorists. The concern that I have is how so many people bought the party line out of the Obama administration that it "was" a mob. It is equally a concern as to why so many people in the Obama administration lied or were so incompetent as to believe that it was a mob. That is why I bring up the quotation "The dog ate my homework."
I know that many of you are parents and even as kids, you must have heard the excuse that"The dog ate my homework". If your kid told this line to you, was the first thing that you did was to try to find the dog? No, it was to punish your kid for lieing. Now, at the time you did not have all the facts, but from prior experience, you knew that the odds of the dog actually eating the homework were very small. Wasn't it exactly the same thing with the claim that in was a mob? You can't just check your brain at the door when it comes to dealing with people telling you things, no mater who they are. In the case of Libya, we all came to the party with some prior knowledge that we could apply to the likely hood that it was a mob vs organized terrorists. This is a repeat, but why didn't the talking heads ask for some kind of proof that it was the mob considering the fact that because being a mob was such a low probability that to pick that one, they would need a "lot" of proof. Are we all that stupid? It is possible that the dog did eat your kids homework, but for you to accept that, I think you would need to see some of the paper sticking out of the dogs mouth or in his poop. Without that kind of proof, your kid can expect to be punished.
I did not get into Bayes' Theorem, but the above is a perfect example of most of you coming to the correct decision with respect to your kid's homework using Bayes' Theorem. What people should have said to Rice and the others is, "Oh, yes, the dog ate my homework too." I think that had the talking heads made some kind of comment like this, right from the beginning, this whole thing would not have had legs and we would have quickly gotten to who actually told everyone in the Obama administration that it was a mob and not organized terrorists.
Now for Petreaus. Why would he be a party to this lie when now we know that he knew it was not a mob, but organized terrorists. My guess is that it was something like this. The President, Obama, who is his commander and chief told him that it was in the national interest to claim that it was a mob. The President, Obama, would not have had to explain exactly why in was in the national interest, but on that basis, Petreaus would have been expected to obey and it appears that he did. There is only one person over Petreaus who would have the authority to get him to "shade" the truth and that would be the President, Obama. Now, it it happened this way, what could have been in Obama's mind that convinced him that this was in the national interest? Obama getting reelected!!! After killing OBL, Obama had convinced that he had greatly weakened the terrorists, but if they had killed our Ambassador, that would point out that terrorists were still a serious threat. That would weaken Obama and mitigate against him winning the election. For Obama, that may have looked to him as in the national interests, but not for me or most high school graduates.
Next time, call out, "The dog ate my homework" and bring people back to reality. Remember the "King has no cloths"? It is the same thing. We all need to be honest with ourselves and others.
