Soon after the Bengazi attack President Obama made a statement that included the word terrorism.
This statemen was so carefully phrased that if you were later to insist he was refering to te Bengazi attack he could deny it , or if you were later to say (as Romney did) that he did not call the Bengazi attack terrorism that he could claim it.
I just can't see such chraftsmanlike weasel wording as any sort of accident, when they were planning the coverup they must have planned this also, incase the coverup , with its very weak premise of irritateing video, did not work.
That is of course just my speculation , you may see if your speculation fits the situation better than mine does.
Here is some speculation that doesn't fit the situation well at all,:
1. That the Whitehouse was bideing its time before accuseing terrorists untill more evidence was in....
No... There was no bideing of time before accusing the bumbling video producer.
2. That the Whitehouse was confused by the fog of war, and that the military commanders responsible needed more intelligence about the situation before committing soldiers to harms way.
No... The Ambassidor was on the phone, the security detail was on the radio, there was a drone overhead and there was a live feed from cameras in the Embassy annex compound. How much intelligence is enough? Although stateing a need for these guys to grow some more intelligence miht be hard to argue with.