Yes, I'm aware. While I'm not exactly sure the hang up people have with getting Obama to call things "terror" or not, in this case I think it actually matters because of the clear attempt to mislead. And it's not at all clear that he was talking about Benghazi when he said "act of terror", especially when he was so hesitant about calling it terrorism when asked in interviews.

So, again, I think he was talking about 9/11/01.

The information that they just released showed that the CIA was the one saying that they shouldn't rush to declare this an Al Qaeda attack and that's why it was removed until further investigation.

He was hesitant because the CIA was telling him there was no solid intelligence on it being Al Qaeda or not. What does the misleading gain Obama by the way? An attack on a consulate in a war zone was going to change the election results? 

And the attack was carried out by an Al Qaeda affiliate, there's about a dozen of them all over the world. They don't get direct orders from the original Al Qaeda constantly. Ansar Al Sharia is the party that claimed responsibility.

If I'm reading it correctly, that is not what they are doing. ADA scores are used to exclusively calculate the ideology of members of Congress.....not the media outlets. They then look at which think tanks politicians and media outlets cite. The media outlets that cite the same think tanks as politicians are then ascribed the ADA score of those politicians. There is no connection between the issues voted on in Congress and the issues discussed by the media outlets in the analysis. It all depends on the cited think tanks.......which is my problem with the methodology.....they are ascribing an ideologically extreme score to media outlets based on an unconnected analysis of cited think tanks. Their arument is essentially, "politicians who cite ________ think tank share the same ideology score as media outlets who cite the same think tank." I find that logic less than convincing because of the polarizing manner in which ideology scores are calculated.

Basically, the paper has nothing to do with where the media outlets stand on the issues used in the ADA scores. It has everything to do with whether they cite a think tank.

No. In fact, Petraeus wanted to include more information, but Morrell didn't because he felt it would be unfair to the State Department. The reservations about al-Qaeda were the State Department's, not the CIA's:

The version the administration used in the days after the attacks, primarily by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, did not include suspicions about the involvement of a Libyan militant group with ties to Al Qaeda. State Department officials objected to the inclusion of that information.

Probably not, but remember that Biden was running around with that "Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive!" line at the time. If they acknowledged an al-Qaeda affiliate had hit us on 9/11 despite advance warnings, it might disrupt the narrative they were pushing that he was Obama the Osama-slayer.

It's strange to insist that he wouldn't do this unless the election hinged on it. Political campaigns are long haul tit-for-tat mudslinging affairs. You get into the habit of trying to manage and advance your narrative at every turn while undermining your opponent's, and you don't necessarily measure it out in terms of doing only what you absolutely have to do to win. You want to blow the other guy out of the water, not eke out a victory.

And again, it might have been the State Department more than Obama himself who didn't want to acknowledge that this was an al-Qaeda linked group.

Morrell who is deputy director of the CIA is part of the CIA, he disagreed with Petraeus it says in the article you linked meaning there was disagreement within the CIA about it.

But the boss wanted more info released, and Morrell deferred to the State Department's concerns about Republicans waiting to use this as political ammo. There were no doubts about Ansar al-Shariah's involvement.

The fact that this was done by an Al Qaeda linked group doesn't change the fact that Bin Laden was killed or that the leadership of the original Al Qaeda has been greatly diminshed. One successful attack in a war torn country like Lybia is far from showing Al Qaeda on the rise again. So even if they did leave out the information at first (information that could not be agreed upon), it seems pretty pointless. Terrorism was one of the lowest polled issues when the election was held.