re: #20 AntonSirius

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

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.

Sorry, that’s just not accurate. The New York Times directly quotes the militants themselves saying they attacked in retaliation for the video. It can’t get any clearer than that. And the report you’re citing does not disprove this at all.