Originally Posted by Amnorix
errr...why would the Administration even lie about this? What possible difference could it really make?
I'm tending to think it has more to do with the usual issue of having to speak based on insufficient facts, and then realizing that events aren't as they were first understood to be. Heck, some of the "blatant lies" are beyond stupid to make because they are so easily proven/disproven (the 2 SEAL guys being part of the security detail, for example). Lying about something that is easily disproven is beyond stupid.
They UK Independent reported that the US had advanced warning of the attack on the Libyan consulate according to unnamed diplomatic sources. But I agree, this is either a case of lying or incompetence.