The Obama administration needs to provide a clear answer about the contradicting statements it has issued regarding the clear lack of security at the US Consulate in Libya prior to last month’s attack.

While the media continues to largely ignore the gravity of the matter, the cold, hard truth is we were not prepared for what happened Sept. 11 at the U.S. Consulate in Libya. The cost was steep – a dead ambassador, another diplomat and two former Navy SEALs – in what was now clearly a planned attack from some kind of terrorist entity. Most fingers point toward Al Qaeda in the Maghreb.

The original position of the administration was that it was a “spontaneous” attack, for which no one could have really been prepared. Furthermore, they attributed the “spontaneous” attack to the video mocking the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

While there can be no doubt the mentioned video caused mass outrage in the Muslim world, it cannot, however, be used as the reason Ambassador Stevens and the others were brutally murdered.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice explained the attack this way during a statement she issued at the U.N. That notion has essentially been entirely debunked. Now, the heat is on her and others in the administration from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. After pressure began to build, the administration finally changed its tune and conceded it was indeed a terrorist attack. Still,the spin has not stopped there.

According to the Washington Post, a number of sensitive documents were recently found that detail the situation at the consulate prior to the attack, such as Ambassador Steven’s itinerary, the identity of several Libyan guards who had been contracted to protect the consulate and, most importantly, evidence that the U.S. Embassy requested more security out of fear of an attack based on actual intelligence assessments. These documents contradict essentially everything the administration has laid out.

Now, out of nowhere, administration officials have said they went solely off the intelligence at hand to base their belief it was spontaneous. If there was a request by the embassy for more security based off of intelligence they had, what does that say about the administration’s stance on their intelligence?

Either the intelligence is clearly faulty or the administration is trying to purposely sweep this huge intelligence failure under the rug, strictly for fear of the consequences. If what the administration said is true, then heads should be rolling at the U.S. State Department and the various intelligence agencies. If the latter is true, then heads within the administration itself need to start rolling, and the necessary policy makers, including the President, need to be held responsible.

Despite this strong criticism of the administration’s contradicting stances, we must not be so quick to jump to the worst-case conclusion, which is the administration actively knew about the threats of a terrorist attack and not only did anything to prevent it, but also actively covered it up after the fact.

We are in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty.

In this case, that is the Obama Administration, and at least personally, I will wait until I see actually definitive results before I cast my final judgments on the matter at hand.