Adak, my first rule of business in these kinds of threads is, if you lead with the sarcastic snark, ya got nothing. You need to be able to argue seriously, not just play slap-battle. Anybody can do that, and it's a childish game, not for serious thinkers. Up your game.
Fog of war
always applies, and you don't get to reject it based on the facts that came out to everyone well after the event. That is, by definition, how fog of war works: the facts are not immediately and perfectly available to all parties. Conjecture gets elevated to temporary fact since explanations are required.
If you feel differently, you may point me to the post you made on 9/12 saying that since this happened on 9/11 you are suspicious that it wasn't due to the video. In fact I'll be generous and allow you up to 9/14 to have thought of that. You don't have to be certain, just suspicious.
If you feel that all this was possible because the media was carrying water for Obama -- and they often have done so, certainly -- you must ask yourself why they
stopped, since the first explanation was eventually rejected and that was quite harmful to the administration at a really bad point in time.
Lastly embassies are attacked all the time (26 attacks on US embassies in history), and in fact the worst such attack happened under Reagan. To make such an enormous amount out of this one is clearly partisan... and thus, causes us unforced errors in the WoT. Which is why I say partisanship politics, on any side, makes one dumber. And this is true of everyone. Up your game.