"There are no unanswered questions" about the White House response to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack, spokesperson Jay Carney said Tuesday. To the contrary, there are many questions the White House has not answered. Here are a few:

1. The words "al-Qaeda" and "terrorism" were deleted from the talking points that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice when she appeared on five separate talk shows the Sunday after the attack. Thus far, five different explanations for those changes have been provided by administration officials. Why were those words deleted?

2. Why did CIA officials first say the FBI changed the talking points then later say they changed the talking points?

3. Why did President Obama and other officials claim for two weeks that there needed to be an investigation to determine the cause of the attack while also claiming that the attack was caused by an anti-Islam video?

4. In a Nov. 14 press conference, President Obama said that the White House chose Susan Rice to appear on the talk shows, then said that Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received." Why was Rice chosen to appear on the talk shows if she knew nothing about Benghazi beyond a page of talking points provided to her?

5. Since State Department officials have testified that they never came to the conclusion that the attack was sparked by a demonstration, how did the claim that it was sparked by a demonstration make it into the talking points?

Follow us

6. Why was Lt. Col. Andrew Wood's request to maintain a security team in Libya denied?

7. In a Sept. 25 speech at the United Nations, President Obama said, "there is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy." Why did he imply that the attack was sparked by the video when his own intelligence sources knew by then that the connection was tenuous at best?

8. In the second presidential debate on Oct. 16, President Obama proudly reminded everyone that he called the attack and "act of terror" the day after the attack, suggesting that he knew from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack. If this is true, why did Rice, Carney, and other administration officials refuse to call it a terrorist attack for the next two weeks?