Obama White House Now Admits Attack In Libya Premeditated
@andersoncooper tweeted:

US Defense Secretary now says terrorists "planned" #Benghazi attack. What's behind evolution of public statements by admin?

Jake Tapper has the details:

Tapper's written report here:

Panetta today said that the attack that killed four Americans on the anniversary of 9/11 was not only carried out by terrorists -- it was pre-meditated.

"As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place," Panetta told reporters, "it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack."

The White House first suggested the attack was spontaneous -- the result of an anti-Muslim video that incited mobs throughout the region.

...White House officials acknowledge that assessments have changed over time as intelligence has been confirmed, but they insist that no information was given in bad faith and there was no attempt to downplay the attack.

But sources told ABC News that intelligence officials on the ground immediately suspected the attack was not tied to the movie at all. The attackers knew Ambassador Stevens had been trying to flee -- to a so-called safe house half a mile away. That building was hit with insurgent mortars -- suggesting the terrorists knew what they were doing.

From The Daily Beast, Eli Lake reports:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda-affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. "We learned more information every single day about what happened," Gibbs said on Fox News. "Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do."

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Obama UN Ambassador Susan Rice was trying to sell the tale that the attack -- which cost four American lives, including US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens -- was just a spontaneous demonstration that "spun out of control." She worked hard to sell the administration's claim that the violence was all about the video, "The Innocence of Muslims."

Morrissey wrote (all the way back on September 16 -- at the above link):

The betrayal of the supposedly "safe house" also tends to support Magariaf's assertion. An angry mob wouldn't have organized well enough for that kind of pursuit and intelligence, unless the Libyan security forces in the know simply and "spontaneously" decided to throw in with the mob, which is possible but pretty unlikely. The coordination and purposeful strategy in play shows premeditation and planning, and that means it's not just an angry mob that spontaneously "spun out of control."

Maybe someone should ask the State Department to explain the difference in conclusions. Oh, that's right, that part of the US government has declared itself immune from public scrutiny. Bummer. Because if this attack wasn't the "spontaneous" event that "spun out of control" that Rice insists it was, then State and the White House have a lot to answer for on their preparations and security decisions for the anniversary of 9/11 in a part of Libya well known to be haven to radical Islamist terror networks -- including al-Qaeda.