"A definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack."

Let's look at all the statements, in order. On the 12th, we were told that what happened in Libya was "clearly a complex attack." On the 13th, there was the muddying swirl about "protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet." Note that doesn't specify the murder of the ambassador in Libya.

Then, on the 16th, we heard Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stolidly deliver the talking points on "Face the Nation":

“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously...

What's the scope of "it"?

... in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

So there first thing that happened was the video-related protests, and then others joined in, but we don't know whether they did that spur of the moment or if it was planned. "We do not have information" about those"extremist elements, individuals," but we do have "the best information" about things beginning spontaneously.

On the 20th, Jay Carney was saying "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," but claiming a lack of info on whether it was "a significantly preplanned attack" and asserting however much it might have been preplanned — what does "pre-" add to "planned"? — it was still "opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive." Note the clever merger of the planned attack with the cover provided by the offense taken at the video.

Obama kept stressing the video and avoiding saying "terrorism," though Hillary Clinton called it terrorism on the 21st. Confronted with her statement on the 25th, Obama would only say we're "still doing an investigation, and "it wasn’t just a mob action." That was on "The View."

Yesterday, Carney was asked whether "there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no?  Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?" Jeez, "The View" was too tough. Carney said:

“He answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover.  But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”

It's our view and his view, but he wouldn't say it on "The View."

"4 Pinocchios for an unproven Romney claim of 'crony capitalism.'"

It's the WaPo Fact Checker (which, we remember, just gave Obama 3 Pinocchios for suggesting Romney is a criminal.)

WaPo Fact Checker gives the Obama campaign 3 "Pinocchios" for using Bain's SEC documents to portray Romney as a criminal.

Glenn Kessler went back over the story (which yesterday he characterized as already well-studied and rejected). Excerpt:

We readily admit that there is grey area about Romney’s involvement with Bain in the 1999-2002 period, because his future post-Olympics role had not been settled and the future of Bain Capital was in flux. Some have seized on the SEC documents as evidence, but we think there are two stronger pieces of evidence that trump these random filings.

Indeed, if someone wanted to make a criminal case, why quibble with ancient SEC documents? In 2011, Romney, as a presidential candidate, filed a public financial disclosure form, under pain of perjury, that stated:

“Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.”

You can see Romney’s signature, on the first page, in which he states: “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.” If Romney lied on this form, that would be a felony.

Moreover, there is another document — the 2002 Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission report that certified that Romney could run for governor.... [A]n official state investigation concluded that Romney no longer worked at Bain as of early 1999, and also was working “12 hours a day, six days a week” on the Olympics from 1999 to 2002. That also would seem to trump the SEC filings....

We were tempted to award this claim Four Pinocchios, but the documents with his signature leave some room for inquiry. But, overall, they shrink in importance to the other evidence cited above.

Still, if the Obama campaign wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should immediately lodge a complaint about Romney’s financial disclosure form, filed just last year, rather than try to mislead people about potential violations in relatively unimportant SEC documents.

ADDED: I strongly disagree with that last sentence. An incumbent President running for reelection should not unleash his executive powers to hound his opponent with a criminal investigation. That is not preferable. There's no decent "put your money where your mouth is" argument for that. It's not his money, it's the authority of the United States government, and that must not be appropriated for political gain. Within the political arena, he can make whatever arguments he wants over any evidence that's out there about his opponent, and he incurs the risks that people will judge his arguments weak or even disgusting and dishonest. That's the process and it's working. Don't push the candidate into some other, abusive process!