It's always been at least partly the video. Anyone who paid attention at the time knows that. Anyone who bothers to dig down now knows that.
Two things emerge from that recognition:
1) How much of the Libya attack was due to the video is a question worth exploring (along with several other reasonable questions already raised).
2) When the GOP started insisting that the video was not at all a factor and that administration spokesmen who said it was a factor were lying, the GOP lost all credibility.
I confess I don't understand this tactic, yet we see it a lot. You have a perfectly good basis for criticizing, but you blow one bit out of proportion and hang your reputation on it. Sure, sure, they do it a lot and get away with it a lot. So maybe that explains it. But why take that risk when the reasonable approach will still tarnish your opponent?
As I said before, I'm sure the militants were offended by the video, assuming they had seen it. But their motivations for the attack were much more than just the video. This attack was planned before the video started getting attention. It was planned to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary and was in response to our predator drone attacks and the imprisonment of their comrades.
But here's the thing - the White House's motivation for deception went beyond merely
why the attacks occurred. It was more about
how and
by whom the attacks were perpetrated. Even if we accept the narrative that the attacks were motivated by the YouTube video it doesn't change the fact that the White House deliberately tried to deceive Americans about details of the attack.
They wanted us to believe it was carried out by ordinary Muslims who overreacted to the video. They wanted us to believe this because they didn't want us to know it was actually carried out by militants loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda. They wanted us to believe it was a spontaneous demonstration, just like the ones in other Arab nations, and that it simply got a little out of hand. They didn't want us to know it was carried out with anti-aircraft artillery and mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, in stark contrast to other anti-video demonstrations where the weapons of choice were shoes and rocks and bits of loose concrete.
The reason they wanted to conceal the truth is because there was a critical election coming up in a few weeks and this nasty little incident was a bit embarrassing to an administration whose central campaign theme was that they had made America safer. They had ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had killed Osama bin Laden. They were bringing democracy to Libya. Muslim countries finally respected us after the damage done by the previous administration. Al-Qaeda was on the run.
Just a few days earlier, as you may recall, Joe Biden stood in front of the Democratic National Convention and told America and the world to ask Osama bin Laden if he was better off than he was four years ago. They simply couldn't have Americans thinking we were still vulnerable to attacks from al-Qaeda. Not with the general election just around the corner.
So they tried to convince Americans that the attack on Benghazi was just a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand. It really doesn't matter whether the militants were angered by the YouTube video. The key to the White House deception was downplaying the role of Ansar al-Sharia and blaming it on ordinary citizens whose deity was disrespected.
