Benghazi attack - Terrorists or unruly crowd?

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by bobabode

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.... and the rest>>>>

One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

The ambiguity has helped fuel the election-time bickering in the United States ever since.

So the militants "may have" used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
And then they claimed responsibility for the attack on the internet just after it began, but didn't mention the video in their internet claim.
So, what was their motivation for blaming the video if they were going to turn around and claim the attack in the name of their radical group?
Why have we not heard repeated claims from these groups since the attack that it was the video?

And the witness is a lawyer? What, they couldn't find a blind guy?