Benghazigate and "something is rotten in the state of Denmark":

That question during the last debate where Obama said that he had initially (the next day) declared the Benghazi attack to be a terrorist attack - think that the entire scenario related to this question was a set up. 

Obama's body language, and look of total confidence when he asked the moderator to check the transcript (which I believe someone in Obama's administration told her to have in hand), was all a set up.  Believe that Obama/his staff, knowing that this would be a topic during the debate, looked at exactly what he had said that next morning at his press conference and saw the words" acts of terror", and decided that it would be to their political advantage during the debate to declare that what he really meant during that speech was that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  However, if you look at the entire 12 Sep speech, it's clear that he was not talking about Benghzai - he was talking about acts of terror in general.  Besides, if you look at main stream press reports from the ensuing week or two - until the Obama administration eventually admitted that this was a terrorist act (vice an out of control protest march over a  movie trailer), you notice that everyone in the administration was saying that this tragedy was related to the movie trailer.  If Obama really meant something different in his 12 Sep speech, he had a week or two to correct his employees/say something different himself.  He should have made sure that Susan Rice who appeared on 5 different news show five days later didn't say it was related to the movie trailer, he should have made sure his his press secretary didn't tie the tragedy to the movie trailer at press conferences, and HE should have said at the U.N. the following week that the tragedy was not caused by the movie trailer, but by Islamic terrorists..  He didn't - why?  Because on 12 Sep he didn't intend in his speech to call the tragedy a terrorist act.

As a related aside, when the moderator agreed (which she retracted after the debate) with Obama that he did say "acts of terror", there was applause.  Later video/audio from the debate showed that it was Michele Obama.  Most likely she knew about the pre-planned set up scenario, and was overjoyed to see how well it turned out for her husband.

Have heard a few Democrats say that Benghazigate is all about Republicans trying to use this tragedy as a means of defeating Obama in the upcoming election.  Actually, they have a point.  Republicans are trying to use this for political gain......... just like Democrats would in a similar situation. 

 However, when you consider what actually happened - the administration turned down repeated requests for additional security forces, and instead actually pulled existing security forces from a site that was obviously a hot spot for possible terrorist action.   Why?  So that security staffing would jibe with a warm and fuzzy Arab spring scenario that the administration was promoting to prove their "Al Queda is on the decline" campaign slogan.  Americans are dead because the Obama admministraion considered political gain rather than the safety of our people, and then engaged in a cover up for same.  The important point is that the electorate needs to know before the election that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark".