You're just regurgitating the same old crap Carol. Obama never denied it was a terrorist attack. There's more evidence that the video was the impetus for the attack than there is that it wasn't.<quoted text>
The report placed blame on the State Department for not increasing security in Benghazi because of general warnings that U.S. personnel were at risk - and that the attack was preventable.
The report also accused intelligence for inaccurately reporting the attack without sufficient intelligence to corroborate a protest.
Which begs the question -- without this evidence, why did Obama and Hillary continue to adamantly blame a protest and a video? If investigations were, in fact, still underway (according to Obama) weeks after the attack, why did he continue to blame a video during those two weeks before investigations were conclusive?
Shouldn't he have just admitted the possibility of a terrorist attack from the very beginning?
No matter how you slice it, something's not adding up.
(Don't care if this posts twice, it's worth repeating.)
But go ahead, keep chasing your tail.