President Barack Obama's administration knew the Sept. 11 assault that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was the work of terrorists soon after the attack.
Yet Obama, then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, assured the nation the deaths were the result of a spontaneous attack by Libyans upset about a videotape produced in the United States and critical of the prophet Muhammed.
"Talking points" about the attack, prepared by the CIA, specifically blamed terrorists. Yet at some point after that document left the intelligence agency, it was edited to delete references to a terrorist attack.
Now the administration claims that was done for three reasons: Because the information was classified, links to al-Qaida were "tenuous" and the White House did not want to prejudice a criminal investigation.
Obama's spin doctors must think that the American press and public are incredibly naive and gullible. And we'll concede a large portion of mainstream media seems to be shirking it's responsibilities regarding the Libyan killings.
But Since when have any of the explanations cited by a White House source for altering the talking points been a concern in the past?
And who with a straight face can even begin to accept that an al-Qaida link was more "tenuous" than claiming a videotape sparked the attack?
Clearly, the administration preferred to ostracize a U.S. citizen for exercising his freedom of speech in producing the videotape over admitting al-Qaida was to blame.
Perhaps some people are gullible enough to believe the White House. Some Democrat Party leaders are not so blindly trusting, however. Among them is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee. "This whole process is going to be checked out," she pledged.
Let's hope so, so the truth finally can come out. Party affiliations, after all, aren't supposed to stand in the way of the truth when Americans are unnecessarily dead.