The point, of course, is that it was never unreasonable to suppose that the attacks were related to the video.
And there were people in the CIA saying that it was, which is why
the talking points given to Susan Rice by the CIA included those statements.
For me, the map indicates how very unusual it would be for there
not to be a protest in Libya on a day when protests against the video were so ubiquitous across the Muslim world.
Interestingly, there's an article in today's NYT
still saying the video was a primary cause of the attack:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.