Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus’ Congressional testimony made clear that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has previously reported that this change in thinking began too late to alter Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points.
Earlier today -two months after the fact- John McCain (R-FailedAngryOldMan) claimed he "‘knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning." Yet the day after the attacks, Obama described the attack on the US embassy as an "act of terror." A fact pointed out during debate #2: Romney Drowns in GOP Kool-Aid.
In a rational world, Petraeus' testimony should have killed the "White House is incompetent/corrupt" narrative. That it hasn't just indicates how absurd wingnuts have become; indeed, Faux News is using their former hero Petraeus' testimony as evidence of an Obama cover up! What is the supposed rationale behind this this cover up? Some vague notion that the president would have lost the election if the people had known it was a terrorist attack? Haha, see above paragraph.
We have seen this time and again, the refusal among wingnuts to accept any data not conforming to their delusional worldview. Indeed: in the wake of a resounding electoral smackdown, they double down on their delusions and talk about "messaging" and related strategery.
I can't actually blame wingnuts for this: notions of "free will" notwithstanding, four decades of swallowing the garbage of Nixon, Reagan, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Faux News, Bushes 1&2 and their related apparatchiks make questioning the premises of conservative "thought" by conservatives nearly impossible. (Actually it goes back a lot further: a cursory examination of the current US electoral map indicates so-called "red states" are almost perfectly aligned with the Confederate [slave] states of 160 years ago.) They are all willfully...or perhaps necessarily...ignorant of history.
To quote Bill O'Reilly
"It's a changing country. The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it. And he ran on it."
"Whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the white establishment is now the minority."
Yee haw, how the apologists attempt to spin the bottom line with claims that Obama was really that stupid. Bottom line is that Obama was not that stupid and the White House knew it was a planned terrorist attack on Stevens, and ?people within the white House changed the CIA report expressing such, and Susan Rice and fellow court jesters intentionally lied to the American public.