But much like dealing with little children - one does protest too much.
The fact of the matter is the Whitehouse made all types of claims about how the act was caused by spill over anger at some Youtube video. Even now, some liberals still believe that original claim - and clearly don't feel any shame in expressing that. They don't seem to realize that spontaneous rioters often don't have mortar training.
From the most recent report,
"The testimony shows lawmakers recalling how Petraeus stressed protests over an anti-Islam video as the impetus -- an explanation that would later unravel -- while brushing off concerns that mortar attacks indicated a planned terror attack."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/05/gop-lawmakers-highly-critical-petraeus-benghazi-explanation-testimony-shows/
And remember, last month, via the House's report, we learned that Al-Queda members were involved in this attack in some manner. So, you have what seems to be a planned Al-Queda attack swept under the rug because Obama perhaps didn't want to be seen as allowing a major terror attack on his watch.
That would explain the general "ignore it, it will go away" approach to the situation.
But, the real kicker in the article is this,
If the lawmakers’ recollection is accurate, that means Petraeus' brief on Sept. 14, 2012, was instead in line with the White House, and then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's State Department. It was a State Department press release at 10:07 pm ET, before the attack was even over, that first made the link to the obscure anti-Islam video. The newly declassified testimony says $70,000 was spent on advertising in Pakistan, denouncing the anti-Muslim film.
So it was a concerted, and tax payer funded, effort at misdirecting the American public.
Sodas
