re: #13 researchok

It’s become about ideology and agenda, not evidence.

Well, the evidence now suggests that there was a spontaneous demonstration against the video which the terrorists used as cover for their attack:

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.
Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.
There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.
The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus’ initial briefing to Congress when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia’s possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

So the original NYT reporting (and Charles’ tweet) aren’t, in fact, correct - the actual attack and assassination weren’t motivated by anger at the video - but the story that emerged is a lot more nuanced than the right wants to believe. There’s no villain in the true story, no Susan Rice deliberately lying to the American people and no Obama pulling strings on a cover-up to save his re-election campaign, just intelligence assessments that evolved over time. Which is how the damn system’s supposed to work.