I agree with, and appreciate the clarity of your entire comment. In particular the last line. Now...here is an additional question that has been bothering me.
If, as Biden and Obama want us to believe, they had no information from the State Dept. or Intelligence community about any need for extra security measures in Benghazi...and...if they had no hint of any possible plans for terrorist activity on the 11th anniversary of 9/11...then, why/how in the world did they learn and know about some little, insignificant trailer for a video that appeared on YouTube that no one had even heard of?
I mean...gee...did their Intelligence people tell them about that yet failed to tell them about needing more security, or terrorist activities?
They want us to think that they had communication about some film, but none about the serious threats!
The Obama Administration was immediately prepared to blame the video on YouTube, and had, obviously, heard about it from some source. I doubt Obama discovered it by himself by surfing the Internet one night and just happened to find it on YouTube .
It just seems all too convenient and irrational that this Administration knew about a film, but knew nothing about terrorist plans nor suspected that something could happen on 9/11/12. It is just too unbelievable that this Administration wants us to believe that the Intelligence community was all riled up enough about a film to mention it to Obama, but was not at all concerned about security requests from the embassy in Benghazi.
So, did Obama learn about the film from Intelligence...the State Dept...or who/where/why/how?
On one hand Obama and Biden want us to believe that the information (or lack of) received by them from their Intelligence people was deficient, and that our Intelligence Dept. was derelict in its duties. But, obviously, it was efficient enough for them to believe about some stupid, innocuous film. Just who knew what about that video on YouTube advertising the "Innocence of Muslims" film and when did they decide it would make a good scapegoat for Obama to use "just in case" something went awry in the Middle East?
I believe that there is a lot more here that has been in play concerning why/how this video ended up being Obama's "excuse."
Carney made it clear that the protests across the Muslim world targeting U.S. embassies and consulates, is in no way directed at the policies of President Obama’s administration.
Carney said that the protests were exclusively aimed at a video which is highly critical of Islam that a U.S.-based filmmaker put online in June:
This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.
Once Carney said this, I recognized instantly at the time that this was a giant coverup. The was the tack the WH was going to take to defend themselves against the charge that their policies were a failure. Notice how categorical Carney states this. No reservations or qualifiers. They painted themselves into a corner and then doubled down with Rice a few days later. I guess they counted on the entire MSM buying this with no follow up.