re: #34 Charles Johnson

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.

Tell that to the CIA… their position is now that the attack itself (not the demonstration - they apparently consider them separate acts) was not directly motivated by the video.

If a transcript surfaces of Petraeus’ testimony it might clear things up further, rather than second-hand recaps of what he said. But “the CIA eventually disproved those reports” doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.