Candy Crowley: Romney was right, just picked the wrong word

The moderator in the debate between Obama and Romney stepped in to ‘correct’ Romney as the pair clashed over what Obama said (referencing the assault on the embassy as a terrorist act, or not) the day following the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi.  Now outside the heat of the debate and having done her pro-Obama work, the reality emerges.

If Crowley had been unbiased and impartial, not that one expects that in the US media which leans so far to the Democrat party it’s a surprise it’s not toppled over, one wonders if Crowley’s injection would have been rather different.  Elsewhere someone who has undertaken their own fact check of Obama’s speech that day offers this assessment:

As for the actual Rose Garden speech by Barack Obama the day after the Benghazi Massacre, the one and only use of the word terror comes toward the end  – the exact phrase being “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”  The president was unclear as to whether or not he was referencing the specific coordinated terrorist attack in Benghazi, or acts of terror in general.  This confusion is furthered by the fact Obama referenced that anti-Islam video in this same speech and placed its reference toward the beginning, further adding to its significance as the primary cause of the attack.

Possibly this small but significant part of the debate is going to get a lot of focus in the hours and days ahead.  It will be interesting to see if Romney plays this up as the actual quote is spread far and wide.  Fraser Nelson is already helping that along

6 Responses to “Candy Crowley: Romney was right, just picked the wrong word”

  1. 1 mowmeadow 17/10/2012 at 7:45 am

    Many Americans are obviously dismayed at the way this Benghazi Massacre was handled by the White House. The word terrorist is almost unknown among Democrats, as if it would hurt their chums and associates too much in the other world of Muslim extremists. To have the President and his Secretary of State to continue for over a week to blame the Benghazi killings to the video, exonerating the mob who most certainly planned the attack for the 9/11 anniversary. Even the Libyan President says it was premeditated. The questions to ask is: our much is the US President and his Secretary of State in cahoots with the world of extremism in the Middle East? Do they love them so much they will risk everything to protect their non involvement in this deed? Have they given so many big donations to these terrorist organisations they feel obliged to protect them? Have they themselves been given such lavish helpful cash contributions by the Arab world to their present heavy spending for re-election? It makes you think.

  2. 2 Sam Duncan 17/10/2012 at 5:41 pm

    What struck me wasn’t that she stepped in, but how quickly she did so. It’s a fine point as to whether the President’s words can be construed to mean that Benghazi was a terrorist attack or not, and saying that they can is the obvious defence if he didn’t, in fact, call it one outright. Taken out of context – the State Department’s statements, the UN Ambassador’s apology for the video, etc. – it’s certainly an arguable point. But Crowley’s eagerness to defend that interpretation looked deeply suspicious.

  3. 5 Dina Robinson 17/10/2012 at 8:56 pm

    Liberal media bias… Crowley rescues Obama! How bias can you get!

  4. 6 Brian H 18/10/2012 at 10:32 am

    bias is not an adjective. It is a noun or verb. “How biased can you get?” is the correct English. Study it some day.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: