On Thursday morning, Fox News confirmed what many suspected for several weeks was the cause of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya: they were a pre-meditated terrorist attack, and the Obama administration had declared them as such within 24 hours.

The main problem with this time line is that until very recently, the administration had not called the occurrences a premeditated terrorist attack when asked about it in the media. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton only admitted that al-Qaeda might have had something to do with the attacks on Wednesday.

The Administration’s publicly held view until recently had been that the attacks were caused by a poorly made and intentionally offensive anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. This was difficult to sell even immediately after the attacks began. And as information has come out about their privately held view, and people like the Libyan president and others have come out saying that it was a terrorist attack and the Obama administration knew it was, the unconvincing narrative has slowly fallen apart.

I wrote about this two weeks ago when it first happened, but the new information that has come out has reinforced my original argument that the administration’s foreign policy has been misguided, ineffective and dangerous.

Without hesitation the administration readily attacked first amendment rights, and Obama even had the guts to go to the U.N. on Tuesday and continue to insinuate that the video was the cause of the controversy.

This video served as a distraction from Obama’s foreign policy follies over the last several years, and more importantly the last several weeks.

Everyone involved in the crafting and reinforcement of the narrative blaming the video for the attacks was spreading a lie. Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on the Sunday talk shows five days after the attack and spread the lie: four full days after the administration knew the truth about the cause of the attack.

For more than two weeks, the Obama administration had no problem blaming someone’s free speech rights instead of al- Qaeda’s Libyan presence for the attacks, and that should be worrisome to all Americans.

Obama’s advantage over Mitt Romney on foreign policy issues is largely just a result of a few big successes which overshadowed the much more numerous errors in judgement. If he hadn’t ordered the attack which killed Osama bin Laden, in other words, he would not be seen as a successful foreign policy president.

The Arab Spring was a folly to support in the places he did support it, such as in Egypt and Libya, and a folly not to support in the places he hasn’t, like with the “Green Movement” in Iran.

On every issue in the Middle East, other than Osama bin Laden, Obama’s inexperience and naiveté in federal government has shown through. And his very experienced advisors on the issue have either been completely ineffective in getting Obama to support the wise position, or have been complicit in allowing this foolish foreign policy. Neither should be very reassuring for the future of either our country or our friends in the Middle East.

Keene is a junior majoring in political science, economics and public policy.