I agree with hardraade that “captioning will get you sometimes” and given your comments, I accept your explanation. My concern was basically this… when one is presenting a story like this (as in making a factually based case), it is imperative that everything essentially be letter perfect and line up…. and those areas that are speculative and need more information be identified as such. Otherwise, one runs the risk that a reader’s scrutiny that uncovers one minor issue that doesn’t line up will cause a reader to be dismissive of the whole piece on no other grounds than “well if that was overstated, what else has been overstated?”. On such an important story as this, that can’t be allowed to happen.
Well, the article has been corrected and explained to the analyst groups that have been pinged to it. It’s now getting some international attention, as well as from DC.
Here is one comment from a US professional:
Former top mil analyst doing the ultimate dismantling of Benghazi, part one:...
Very interesting analysis...and very plausible. We’ll have to see how this plays out