WaPo gives Obama Four Pinocchios on Benghazi

This fact check piece on whether or not the President called the 9/11/12 attacks on Benghazi an "act of terrorism" is worth reading. Excerpt:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate. But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Michael Medved pointed out on his show that Obama contradicted himself within his own statements on Monday, May 13, since he claimed at other points that they weren't "clear" (his word) about the nature of the attacks. I think the word he meant to use was sure, not clear, and perhaps that was a Freudian slip. So they didn't know if it was an act of terror, but they said it was right away.... which is it, Mr. President?