Try and come up with a reasonable explanation why the attack being due to a video somehow makes a better "cover" story for the CIA than the attack being a pre-planned terror strike. I can't think of anything.

I can think of lots of reasons why a President selling his "victory" in the War on Terror might want the attack to be some random unpredictable act of impulse rather than a sign that the Arab Spring is turning into a radical Islamist summer and that despite the damage we're done to it, al Qaeda is still a factor.

More here:

Ms. Lamb, in her congressional testimony, said that from her command center in Washington she was able to track the lethal events of Benghazi in something akin to real time. She was in constant communication with the agent on the consulate grounds who first notified Washington that an assault—"attack, attack," the agent said—was under way. Ms. Lamb also said that the State Department was receiving a steady stream of data on the afternoon of Sept. 11 indicating that terrorism was afoot. Such admissions are what have given rise to charges of a coverup.

"Everyone had the same intelligence," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fox News last week. But that also appears untrue. How information immediately made known to an assistant secretary of state could somehow be withheld for eight days from the secretary of state herself—and from our U.N. ambassador, from the director of national intelligence, from the analytic corps at the Central Intelligence Agency, from the president's chief spokesman, and from the president himself—now forms the central question in the Benghazi affair.