It's nice to read that The Washington Post gave President Obama 4 Pinnochios for what he said after the Benghazi attack:

"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."

It's nice but 6 months late!

The media chose to ignore Benghazi.  It showed no curiosity whatsoever on the incredulous story that a YouTube video caused "a movie review club" to get angry and attack a US consulate.

No one in the media checked the calendar, i.e. the attack happened on September 11.  I'm amazed that no one saw that.  Speaking of the calendar, as well as the deteriorating situation in Benghazi, why didn't someone in the media ask President Obama about the lack of plan to defend our embassies or consulates on the anniversary of September 11?

The media did not challenge the story even after the president of Libya said that it was a terrorist attack.

We'll take the Pinocchios but they did come a little too late.

By the way, how many Pinocchios is Candy Crowley going to get?