Analyzing Obama’s lie and Crowley’s assist-lie about the White House’s response to the Benghazi attack
claimed in the debate—causing a startled Romney to look him in the eye and ask him to repeat it—that he had called the Benghazi attack “terror” in his remarks in the Rose Garden the day after the attack.
Is Obama’s (and Candy Crowley’s) startling assertion—seemingly contradicting everything that has happened in the last few weeks—true?
Carol Iannone writes:
Here’s the transcript of the Rose Garden remarks. The main implication, made at the beginning of the talk, is that the attack was some kind of response to an insult to religion, although he also added that it was still not justified:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 17, 2012 01:35 PM | Send
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Throughout the speech, he condemns the “senseless violence,” refers to “those killed,” “bring to justice the killers,” etc., no different from what a chief of police says when there has been murder. He mentions 911 and how it was the anniversary of that date, but does not attribute any significance to that as being a factor in the Benghazi attack.
Toward the end he says:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
So he mentioned “acts of terror” generically but did not pin down the Benghazi attack as an act of terror, but in fact first implied that it was a response to religious insult.
So Crowley was inaccurate in saying that Obama called it an act of terror; she needed to say, he used the term acts of terror generically but did not say clearly that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror. And then she gave a garbled follow-up about it taking two weeks to say that it was the video, which is what her words actually said:
He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take—it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
Which makes it sound as though it took two weeks to learn about the riot and the tape, which is the opposite of the truth, that the White House used the riot and the tape for two weeks as their bogus explanation. She needed to say clearly, but Romney is right that for two weeks the Administration was attributing the attack to protests, riots, tapes, videos and more or less denying that it was a deliberate and planned act of terror.
Romney was a little thrown by what Crowley said, as I think I would be too if I hadn’t known specifically what she was referring to, and then her unbelievably garbled explanation of the two weeks, and didn’t come back more strongly. But he did get this much out:
ROMNEY: This—the administration—the administration—(applause)—indicated that this was a—a reaction to a—to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: They did.
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and—and to suggest—am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the—your—your secretary or—
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and—and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.