Mitt Was Right: Obama Said “Act of Terror” After Describing Spontaneous Protest – He Didn’t Specifically Lable the Benghazi Attack Terrorism

Tonight at the Hofstra Presidential Debate Candy Crowley did something that just may be unprecedented for a debate moderator. When Mitt took issue with Obama’s initial description of what was clearly a terrorist attack on Benghazi, she actually jumped in to take Obama’s side:  “He did call it an act of terror,” she insisted.

Video via Gateway Pundit

As Romney correctly noted, for two weeks, the administration pushed the spontaneous protest/YouTube video story – the same falsehood that everyone  in the Obama administration was pushing from the very beginning, and that Obama mentioned prominently in the  Rose Garden speech.

Starting at 1:18 he talked about the YouTube video, at 4:18 he said “no act of terror”:

The Obama administration only started pushing the notion that he called it a terrorist attack on day one after the spontaneous protest story fizzled. That’s what Mitt Romney, and Ryan mean when they say, ‘it took him two weeks to admit that it was terrorism.’

Unfortunately, Obama has cover on this because the word “terror” does appear in his Rose Garden speech, as Joel Pollak noted a couple of days ago at Big Peace:

Obama mentioned the word “terror” once in his Sep. 12 statement: “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.” But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

Furthermore, Obama’s reference to “terror” came near the end of his statement. His initial description of the attacks, at the start of his statement, portrayed them as an excessive response to the anti-Islam video upon which the Obama relied for days and weeks thereafter: “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 for this type of senseless violence.”

It was characterized as “senseless violence” that came as a result of the awful, bad You Tube video – not a pre-planned terrorist attack marking the anniversary of 9/11.

As Alana Goodman noted at Commentary on Sept. 30:

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

Some may wonder why it even matters. Maybe Obama really was referring to Benghazi as an “act of terror” in the speech, and he just failed to make that clear enough — so what?

Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical.

Instead, we had the FBI sitting on their hands  in Tripoli, unable to “investigate” the crime scene until October  – after reporters had already picked through all of the rubble.

Pollak observed, in late Sept, the Obama administration began to make a subtle distinction: “the difference between terrorism as an action (or reaction), and terrorism as an independent motive or cause.”

On Sep. 20, for example, when the administration first began to backtrack, White House spokesman Jay Carney suddenly told reporters that it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack had been a “terrorist attack”–by which he meant specifically that “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

In other words, the attack was “terrorist” because it was violent–but not necessarily because it was carried out by terrorists.

Carney did not allow that the attack had been premeditated, leaving the administration enough wiggle room to continue to blame the video–as President Obama subsequently did again, five days later, at the United Nations on Sep. 25. In his speech, Obama failed to use the word “terror” or “terrorism” to describe the attack.

In the days that followed Obama’s speech, the White House and the State Department gradually and grudgingly acknowledged the reality that the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the video. Last week, on Oct. 9, the State Department finally stated unequivocally that there had been no protest outside the U.S consulate prior to the attack.

So the Obama White House, and the Obama campaign, had to change their story again. Having relied for weeks on the imaginary distinction between terrorism as a reaction to the anti-Islam video (a meaning that they had embraced), and cause of the attack (a meaning that they had denied), they began pretending that President Obama had referred to terrorism in the latter, broader sense as early as Sep. 12.

Mitt’s only mistake was not realizing that Obama had used the words “act of terror” in the Rose Garden to describe a reaction to a YouTube video, an explanation that they knew at the time, was untrue.


The Right Scoop: Candy Crowley: Romney was actually right on Libya

After the debate, “Romney was actually right on Libya” trended on Twitter in the United States.

Newsbusters: Candy Crowley Disgraces Herself With Outrageous Tagteam Hit on Romney Over Libya

It was Candy + Eye Candy > Mittens

Gateway Pundit: Krauthammer: Candy Crowley Was Essentially Incorrect and Contaminated the Argument (Video)

She shouldn’t still have a job, today. That was disgraceful – and the kind of thing that can change the course of an election.
Washington Examiner, Beltway Confidential: RNC’s Priebus: Obama lied on Libya and Crowley helped:
“Point blank: The president lied to the American people,” Priebus said when discussing Obama’s comments on whether he blamed terrorists for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. “I think the moderator might have helped that along.”
Say whatever else you want about the debate: seeing Romney have the sack to call out Obama for lying, to his face, was pure chewing satisfaction. As with the previous debate, I may have to trundle over to the Romney campaign site for a wee donation, I’m so pleased by this. And as for Candid Candy, I hope she doesn’t spend all 30 pieces of silver in one place.
The singular take away moment of last night’s debate was one that elevated Crowley from moderator to debate participant. Crowley shot from the hip and echoed a talking point from the Obama campaign regarding their handling of the Libya attack to criticize Mitt Romney mid-debate. What’s more? She was wrong. Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.
Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

 In the Vice-Presidential debate, Martha Raddatz, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five.

Crowley made Raddatz look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect…

Van Jones Calls Mitt Romney a Douche (Video)

Look what passes for intelligent commentary at CNN, these days…

Via The Washington Free Beacon:

I’ve been wondering why CNN would hire this low rent street agitator to be on their political panels. I get they want to have views from all angles, but seriously – does America really need to hear the Communist/Occupy view on the issues? I’d just as soon hear the Honey Boo Boo view, which is more articulate, and less profane than Jones’.

Jones is trying to insert into the public consciousness the idea that Mitt Romney was as obnoxious in his debate as Joe Biden was in his.

Sorry Bucko – the American people saw what they saw.  Romney, while strong and assertive –  came off as likable and fluent on the issues, while  Biden’s overbearing and genuinely douchetastic performance turned people (especially women!) off..

That’s why Obama has been taking a thumping in the polls, end of story.

Forty lashes with a wet noodle to CNN for hiring the execrable Van Jones.

Prediction: Obama Will “Man Up” At Tonight’s Debate

You all saw David Axelrod’s enraged response to Jennifer Rubin’s tweet, last night, right?

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw herself under the bus for President Barack Obama regarding the deadly assault at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the Washington Post’s Jen Rubin observed:

First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) October 16, 2012

The tweet outraged Obama campaign mouthpiece David Axelrod, who replied

Sick. Mitt mouthpiece jumps shark.RT @jrubinblogger: First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) October 16, 2012

Rubin fired back

@davidaxelrod so is Obama going to hide behind her skirt Tuesday night? Why would the president let Hillary end her career in disgrace?

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) October 16, 2012

A Think Progress blogger also slammed Rubin, calling her tweets, “sexist” and “personal.”

Why the hyperventilating panic?

Because polls are now showing that  Romney has closed the once-formidable gender gap.

One conservative insider mused that the new polling is causing Democratic operatives to lose their cool: “Obama was losing the women’s vote before this happened, so no wonder they are frantic. It is unseemly for the president to hide behind her skirt.”

So what will the regime do to stop this burgeoning narrative in its tracks?

John Nolte thinks he has the answer at Big Journalism:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly accepting blame for the security failures in Libya the night before a hugely important presidential debate might be nothing more than a fabricated set-up to allow President Obama to dig himself out of a hole. Hillary’s statement was obviously timed so that it would take some of the pressure off of Obama and swamp today’s pre-debate news — which it has. But the timing also pretty much ensures it will come up during tonight’s debate, and that’s where I smell a rat.

Is the Obama campaign playing a simple game of checkers where Hillary’s statement is meant to let Obama off the hook 24 hours prior to the debate? Or is the Obama campaign playing a more complicated game of chess that potentially sets up a powerful presidential moment for Obama?

Think about it: If Obama were to stand up before the American people tonight and thank Hillary for being The Greatest Secretary Of State In The History Of The Americas and then pull her out from under the bus and accept 100% of the responsibility himself, he’d look like some kind of hero.

A moment like this would be dramatic, make the president look good, and likely command a lot of the attention in post-debate coverage. Pulling a manufactured stunt like this also presents almost no downside (everyone blames Obama anyway) and almost 100% upside.

Remember – it only took one disingenuous “race speech” in March, 2008 to make the lapdogs in the media heel on the Reverend Wright matter, (oh – by the way: despite Obama’s 2008 claims, political relationship with Rev. Wright began as early as 1987), and I suspect the MSM is looking for any excuse to drop this story. Obama’s chivalry will be their signal stand down, and let the regime’s “investigations” run their course.

As Nolte says, there’s no downside to taking responsibility:

Obama’s already going to be held responsible regardless of what Hillary does or doesn’t say and accepting responsibility is not the same as saying the security failures in Libya were his fault. It’s a win-win.

What we can count on Obama not doing is laughing like a hyena at everything Romney says like Biden did with Ryan (women didn’t like that it turns out), and I predict Obama will try a little harder to control his body language and make eye contact with Romney, since that aspect of his first debate performance was viewed negatively by almost everybody.

I hope Mitt’s ready to make Obama feel the heat that comes with taking responsibility. And he should ask him directly,  who in the White House sent Susan Rice out on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16, with the false You Tube video narrative, and why he continued the charade at the UN.


The National Journal reports: Susan Rice: I Relied on Talking Points:

In an interview with The Washington Post published on Tuesday, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said, according to The Post’s characterization, that  “she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials.”

Since when do members of intelligence agencies give officials “talking points”?


Draw and Strike: Why Obama Loses The Second Debate Too

Re: Hillary Taking the Blame on Benghazi – Who Threw Who Under The Bus?

So Hillary Clinton finally decided to take responsibility for the lack of security that led to the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, on September 11:

“I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

Obama and Biden were out of the loop, Hills said.

So that’s that.

Or is it?

Last night three key Senate foreign policy gurus, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made clear they were not buying a word of it. They released the following statement:

We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.

However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.

From their perspective Clinton was forced to walk the plank for a cowardly president who should have stepped forward to take the blame. The buck stops, in Obama’s administration, at Foggy Bottom and not at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But Da Tech Guy is under the impression that Hillary, rather than being “thrown under the bus” has been a master politician in all of this.

There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .

It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.)  If Hillary threw Obama under the bus  would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.

What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:

Read on…

Last night,  Paul Mirengoff of Powerline noted: Hillary takes responsibility for Benghazi, sort of:

In any case, Clinton’s statements will be interpreted, for now, as her taking the blame. Come 2016, they will be re-interpreted as blaming the “security professionals” who let her down.

Does this take President Obama off the hook? No. First, he appointed Clinton as his Secretary of State, in what was probably his most important personnel decision as president.

Second, Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.

Third, Clinton cannot take the fall for our failure, to date, to strike back at those responsible for the Benghazi attack. This too is on Obama.

Scott Johnson of Powerline writes… Speaking of fog:

The Obama administration has had the fog machine working on overdrive since the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton substantially contributed to the fog in her comments to reporters yesterday, including one as it appears in the notes of reporter Wendell Goler of Fox News. Commenting on Susan Rice’s infamous appearances on the Sunday news shows on September 16, Clinton had this to say:

On Rice “grew out of a protest” assertions: “the fog of war. The confusion you get in any type of combat situation. Remember this was an attack that went on for hours…there had to be a lot of sorting out…everyone said here’s what we know subject to change.”

Yet the State Department monitored the attack in real time. The attack never appeared to be anything other than a planned terrorist operation. There was no report of a protest. In this case the fog of politics is a helluva lot thicker than the fog of war.

Hillary is complicit in the bogus protest narrative, having peddled it herself initially, so she has every reason to hide behind a phoney “fog of war” excuse.

I don’t know how she makes a political comeback in 2016 with the taint of this administration all over her.

Roger L Simon says: No, Hillary. Benghazi Will Not Go Away:

Off in Lima, Peru — at least it wasn’t Antarctica or the Aleutian Islands — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen on the proverbial sword long distance, declaring the buck the stops with her on the Benghazi security debacle.

That’s all well and good, but where does the buck stop on all the lying and covering up that followed? Yes, I used the unvarnished “l-word” because that’s what it was. How else to characterize UN Ambassador Susan Rice running around telling everyone in earshot that the Benghazi events were caused by an idiotic and unwatched YouTube trailer when Occam’s Razor — not to mention rocket-propelled grenades, an ambassador dragged through the streets, and a safe house mysteriously under fire — pointed to a terror attack commemorating September 11?

And then the president, acting like an errant husband unwilling to confess his adultery (who do you believe – me or your lying eyes?), repeated the same swill on The View nearly a week later. Unconscionable.

Why did this happen? Why this bizarre need to obfuscate or push away such an obvious truth?

It’s a lot more significant than the usual election season blather. On the deepest level, Barack Obama did not want to be found out. He had something even bigger than Benghazi to cover up – his worldview.

Part of Obama’s worldview is that al Qaeda can be defeated with drone strikes and police actions but as Rep. Peter King says,  Al-Qaeda a bigger threat than they were on 9/11.

Meanwhile, Twitchy tries to keep up with the changing storylines: Not so fast … did Hillary really take the fall on #Benghazigate? Passes buck back, Obama punts:

Over at AoSHQ, Drew makes some very good points on how this hurts President Eye Candy:

How does this hurt Obama? Well tonight he will be standing next to Mitt Romney. Romney you might recall has made a rather big stink about Obama’s failure to lead and his own stellar leadership record.

Here’s how he might play this when Benghazi comes up (or he brings it up himself)…”It’s all well and good that Secretary Clinton is taking responsibility but my leadership experience has taught me that only the person at the top of the organization is truly responsible. President Obama is at the top of the Executive Branch and he’s ducking responsibility. I’d like to know if the President agrees with the Secretary and if he does, why hasn’t he asked for her resignation? If he doesn’t agree, why doesn’t he say who is responsible? Most importantly, why hasn’t he taken responsibility from Day 1. Harry Truman didn’t say the buck stopped at the Department of State, it stopped at his desk in the Oval Office.”

And then it will get ugly for Obama when Romney ads, “And who does the President blame for the failure of his policies to get this economy going? The Secretary of the Treasury? Maybe he blames you the voters for not paying enough in taxes. This country needs a President who accepts the responsibility that comes with the job and doesn’t blame his subordinates.”

Obama will have no answer to any of that. He also can’t fire Hillary because that would cause problems with Team PUMA and his administration would be in disarray 3 weeks before the election

He can’t suddenly say, “Oh no, it’s me not Hillary who is responsible” because A-he doesn’t believe that and B-It’s too late. She beat him to the punch, he’ll look like he’s scrambling to catch up (which he would be).

It should be a fun debate, tonight!

This report from The Washington Free Beacon does seem to substantiate Drew’s thesis: After joking with reporters, Obama silent on Benghazi question:

The exchange was first reported in the White House pool report, as Obama went to a debate prep session in Williamsburg, Va., before Tuesday’s presidential debate in New York:

Reporter: How are you feeling about tonight?

Obama, smiling: I feel fabulous. Look at this beautiful day.

Reporter: Are you aware Michelle voted for you yesterday?

Obama, turning to yell back: Thank goodness!

Reporter: Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?

Obama: (Silence. Kept walking.)

For those of you wondering how the administration thought they could possibly get away with this outrageous cover-up, Charles Krauthammer has your answer.(hint: the MSM is a big part of the equation):

You should fast forward past the tedious introductions to :20 secs in: