Try reading my comment again.
To make your theory stick, you have to come up with a plausible reason why the video lie is a workable cover story for a CIA operation, but a terrorist attack is not.
Or why you can triumphantly declare from his debate that Obama said it was a terror attack from the very beginning, in the Rose Garden, while simultaneously defending Obama saying he fielded the video story because he didn't have any more information than that. Which one was the lie?