But what obfuscation? I just don't see any. Maybe its' because for the first several days of this "scandal" I was completely out of contact from the media and society, but I just rewatched the infamous Ambassador Rice statement that conservatives like to latch onto, and I still don't see a damn thing that was obfuscating or could be called a lie. Fox News seems to be trying to say that because something happened spontaneously, that it couldn't be organized - which is just false. The reports I've read recently on the matter still say that there is no proof that the attack was pre-planned. Everything I have seen regarding the matter shows them being very concise in saying there's an on-going investigation, and relaying information forward. Fox News et al are then trying to cherry-pick intelligence reports, which are not definite nor proof of anything, to try and say that there was evidence to the contrary, so that means Ambassador Rice was lying. And I just do NOT see it. I see a ton of claims that they have been doing this, but I haven't seen any evidence that they were.
I think it's easy to second guess why aide wasn't sent in, but I don't see anything that warrants more than a few reports on the matter, and an internal investigation to see if that was the appropriate course of action. In the end, I think their decision can be something you are free to disagree with, but it hardly amounts to a scandal that people in command didn't want to create a bigger catastrophe by sending more aide into a very confusing situation.