Today’s illustration can be found here.
The question is: why did Susan Rice continue to assert that the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous eruption from a street protest against a YouTube video, long after it was knowable (and known) that this was not the case?
Sec. Clinton’s answer is that we still don’t know exactly the motives of the attackers, or even their identities. (Which is a scandal in itself, but never mind.) Accepting, arguendo, that this is true, that does not justify in any way the repeating of assertions which we knew not to be true.
Example: that we don’t know the identities of the attackers does not allow us to assert that it was the Kardashian family. We know where they were that day, so we know it was not them. We can also, with certainty, say that it was not Lance Armstrong. In fact, without knowing who the attackers were, we can confidently eliminate billions of people.
Similarly, without knowing the genesis of the attack, we can confidently say that it was not a street protest gone wild, because there was no street protest.