U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that a Facebook post in which an Islamic militant group claimed credit for a recent terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya did not constitute evidence of who was responsible.
- "Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."
 |
| YouTube, the While House's Standard for what constitutes credible evidence. |
In others words, it was acceptable for the White House to base their supposition that the terrorist attack in Libya was a response to a "crude and disgusting YouTube video," but any suggestion to the contrary on Facebook, Twitter or a slew of emails to White House officials, including the Situation Room, does not rise to the level of being credible.
Mind you, I don't side with any social medial as a reliable, official resource of White House intelligence. I just don't think it's rational for President Obama's State Department to pick and choose which and when what ilk of media they can cite as their nexus to international affairs.
With explanations so dizzying as the White House would hope American's might believe, one can hardly fault those who might attribute this administration's shifting renditions to political expediency. From my perspective, the only plausible account is summed up in one simple word: coverup.
Your thoughts?
Mark Jordan
©GOOGTOON - Observations on Life • Popular Culture • Politics • Entertainment • Public Figures
