As new details become available, the Obama administration should be expected to continue fine-tuning the facts and clearing up questions that emerge surrounding the operation that finally brought to a close the search for Osama bin Laden.

The administration already has done some of that, admitting that, contrary to initial information released on the night bin Laden was killed, the al-Qaida leader was unarmed when he was shot to death, and was not shielded by a woman prior to being killed.

The administration continues to say that bin Laden was shot while engaged in unarmed resistence to being taken into custody by the special forces that carried out the attack on his compound in Pakistan.

Leon Panetta, CIA director, disclosed that bin Laden “made some threatening moves” that “represented a clear threat to our guys.”

Panetta also said that, under the rules of engagement, if bin Laden had thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn’t appear to be representing any kind of threat, then he was to be captured.

Meanwhile, the administration has clarified that the operation was undertaken with more uncertainty than the American people initially had been led to believe.

Panetta told Time magazine that analysts were only 60 percent to 80 percent confident that bin Laden would be found.

“The reality was that we could have gone in there and not found bin Laden at all,” he said.

But the administration did not enter the information “blind.” There was evidence to suggest that the compound was a major component in the al-Qaida leader’s ability to elude this country for so long, although there was no certainty whether there were underground passageways or other means by which bin Laden could have exited the compound prior to the operation being launched.

While the Obama administration has found itself in the awkward position of tweaking some of the information initially presented, it seems clear that the administration was not so naive as to think it would not be subjected to questions and even some criticism as the operation was given later scrutiny.

In this country, praise — even as much as Obama has gotten since the successful operation was carried out — doesn’t eliminate the possibility of closer examination and critiquing of what was done. Nor does it preclude criticism and second-guessing.

That’s why the comments of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the other day were not an unexpected part of the post-operation discussion. No doubt there will be more in the days ahead.

Rogers scolded the administration for appearing to exploit bin Laden’s death in the details the administration initially released about the Navy SEAL operation.

But the administration’s explanation for the inaccuracies is reasonable — that in the “great haste” to provide information about the operation to the American people before all of the details were in, there was the window for some inaccuracies to occur.

Details that emerged after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks revealed initial inaccuracies and wrong impressions meted out to the American people, including about American intelligence as it existed at that time.

The bottom line is that scrutiny is not bad. Indeed, it should be welcomed.

To its credit, the Obama administration chose to correct inaccuracies quickly and voluntarily, rather than waiting for pressure for it to do so.

Fine-tuning of previously disclosed information and admitting that mistakes were made in disseminating that information is not a bad thing. Deliberate attempts to hide errors and misstatements would have been wrong.

So far, the Obama administration has dealt with the information issue commendably.