Wouldn't it be obvious what it was as soon as the stories of mortars and RPGs and .50 calibers came out, that it was terrorism?

And what would they gain by convincing people it was a demonstration instead of terrorism? Why would anyone blame them if it was terrorism and not a demonstration?

What is it they were supposedly trying to hide? None of it makes sense, even if what you're saying is true, it really is no big deal.

It seems to me much more likely that they either genuinely didn't know, or they were trying to let the terrorists think we were still in the dark about what happened (remember, that "embassy" was really a CIA station, operating with the consent of local authorities who might be embarassed if their cooperation were revealed).

I'm sorry , Rob, but that's been my opinion from the day it happened. I figured it was a deliberate attack using a demonstration as cover. What possible difference could it make to Obama politically whether it was terrorism or the film? He had nothing to gain either way, and he certainly had nothing to gain by lying about it.