First of all, no one ever denied that it was a "terrorist attack". Whether or not it happened because of the video is irrelevant - it was a terrorist attack, whether it was "spontaneous" or planned for months - and Obama said as much the day it happened.
Nor was the story about the movie "completely fabricated". There were protests all over the middle east about the "film", and it's a fairly safe bet to assume that the people who attacked the Benghazi consulate used the "film" to rile people up for the attack.
Politicians lie, all the time. It's silly to expect any differently, particularly where national security is involved.
My point is that we now know that Pres. Obama was well aware that it wasn't a mob fueled by rage from a video within hours of the attack, and I thought it was extremely bizarre and dishonest to trick the American people into believing that was the case
What purpose would that "trick" serve? It doesn't make any sense.
It was just a little suspicious - Doc - given the timing of the comments and the imminent election. It felt like he was downplaying the whole thing intentionally so that he wouldn't hurt his image.
I hate to be blunt, but nothing improves a President's approval rating than a giant terrorist attack. Remember Bush's approval rating after 9/11?
How would this have "hurt" Obama's image?
I get it in that the American public doesn't need to know every piece of confidential military info, but why make up a story and lie about it repeatedly for almost 2 weeks? Tell us "we don't know the cause", or it's "still being investigated"..
Anyways..
"We don't know the cause" for two weeks?
Do you seriously think that would be a good move, from a public relations standpoint?