I get this, because everyone ought to have the same opinion about this. There was a haphazard and poor attempt at deflection, usually there is a reason for this and it makes some sense in the bigger picture.
I would like to simply point out that I can disagree with an ideology, but that I can also understand a motivation behind a decision made for political purpose. As an example, as much as I may have had a terrible taste in my mouth after the Bush administrations response to Katrina, at least I understood that there was an ideological element involved in not committing federal resources right away. Regardless of whether I thought that was right or wrong.
When you apply that sort of logic to this situation in Benghazi, I don't understand what the motivation is/was for the administration to tout the movie thing for so long, in the near immediate evidence available that this was a premeditated and planned attack. Seems to me that a quick and decisive response to the event gives an impression of a terrorist ass-kicking by Obama right before the elections. Even calling the event a surprise and admitting that they were caught off guard goes to show the need to be steadfast in their hunt for AQ in Pakistan and stablizing Afghanistan.
So, why drag it out? What's the bigger picture here? Is it protecting the CIA's role in Libya? Or the broader role of the CIA in the Arab Spring? Getting out a different narrative to deflect the reality of who is calling the shots in North Africa? I'd at least buy in to the plausibility of that theory.