(I'll assume you were responding to my post.)
I did say it was a good point, just that we don't have enough information to judge right now.
I don't think you'll find any political faction that won't blame things on their opponents, nor will you find any kind of press secretary that doesn't sound like a parrot. And I'm looking at the New York Times here, and the home page carries 5 stories related to the unrest.
My point is that it's not obvious at all. The identity, organisation, and motivation of the attackers are still very much murky, and even what happened at the consulate hasn't been publicly established. Given this lack of information, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions, no matter how politically obvious it might be.
This is a general problem with politics. The average voter knows next to nothing about the issues he is voting on. Does anyone know if the craziness in the Middle East is due to failed US policies, or could things have been better with different policies? No, and historians will be arguing about it for decades to come. Similarly with economics, which is all the more exacerbated by current anti-intellectual tendencies on both sides in the US (though perhaps there is an argument to be made for the average Republican voter more anti-intellectual).
Bookmarks