That's not in the emails. This was days after the attack - we didn't KNOW who, much less why, the CIA facilities were attacked. Early on it was blamed on at least three potential groups, and the FBI hadn't even made it on site yet to begin the investigation. We could GUESS, but we didn't KNOW anything about who or therefore why. I'm not sure we (the public) know WHY even now because the CIA activities were classified and I've never seen a description of what those classified activities were. Something important enough to draw the Ambassador to the facility despite it being unfortified, that much is clear, but beyond that it's speculation.
And "playing up the POTUS" strengths - this is politics, are you a bit surprised that politicians are political, or are naive enough to believe that this kind of talking point stuff hasn't happened since George Washington?
Just one more thing - someone mentioned the focus being on Hillary and Obama - that's fine. But it's odd, don't you think, that Petraeus is left out of all this? It was a CIA facility, doing CIA work, under State department cover. The dead included two directly on CIA payroll, but Petraeus didn't go to the memorial, to hide the CIA role. So given this, what was THE reason? You guys on the right tell us with certainty it was NOT the video - OK. So what was the motivation of a bunch of terrorists to plan that attack? Was it an act of terrorism, or more akin to an act of war, i.e. direct retaliation for what the CIA was doing at that facility? You all seem to KNOW a lot - so please explain.
