1. Obama was advised the consulate was under attack by an Al-Qaeda affilliate, realized that such an affair would contradict his :Al-Qaeda is on the run" campaign claims and that reacting militarily would necessarily require him to cancel the celebrity fundraiser scheduled for Las Vegas the next day. For political reasons, he decided to cover up the truth of the matter and, thus, finesse having to make a military response.
2. Obama wasn't involved. Axelrod and/or Jarrett were in the situation room, serving in his stead. Independently, they concluded to fabricate "the video did it" cover and avoid any military action. Obama was briefed accordingly in the morning.
Take your pick.
In any event, another question remains. How did the "Innocence of Muslims" video enter the equation? Obviously, there had to be some prior knowledge of this incredibly obscure posting on You Tube. And how it might be employed in this, shall we say, puzzling capacity.
Which raises a second question: Why was the White House so familiar with this particular piece of Pallywoodian propaganda dross? Had it been spotted earlier and labelled as a possible source of trouble? Or a possible opportunity for misinformation? Or had the Obama network actually been involved in its funding, to further some other nefarious project?
Why was "The Innocence of Muslims" apparently top-of-mind in this drastic situation?
To me, the scenario that best explains everything is a planned hostage trade that went awry because of the last-minute & unplanned intervention by the 2 Seals. Obama and Hillary had the obscure YouTube video all ready to be used as explanation for the riots that led to the ‘kidnapping.’ But when things went bad, they didn’t have enough time to find a better Plan B, and they panicked. What else would explain that video being stupidly used except a last-minute change in their plans? They had PLANNED on everyone’s attention being on the ongoing hostage situation, not the original cause of the attack.
Also, the web apology by the Cairo embassy BEFORE Benghazi even happened makes sense in this theorized kidnap/Blind-Shiek-trade scenario. Didn’t that announcement by Cairo happen a couple of hours before the Cairo riots, supposedly in an effort to prevent it? And didn’t it allude to the video or am I remembering incorrectly?
It’s clear that the Zero admin is covering up a lot more than “oops, AQ isn’t weakened after all”.