When is Jim in NJ

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was quoting the New Yorker article. And I was not doing so to buy whatever larger premise the article advocated. The article was vague enough not to do so anyway. But what I quoted is valid beyond whatever else the author intended. And her intention was, beyond whatever else she may have intended, to say there was a screw up by the administration. She just didn't like the insistence that the "participants" in the attack had to be called Al Qaeda. She certainly didn't prove they were not. But what she said is damning to the administration. And Most sources say that Al Qaeda was involved. And there is testimony that the administration new right from the start, before it claimed that it was "sparked" by a video, that it was a terrorist attack. NOT a protest against the video gone bad.