It was the highlight of the debate.
“I think (it’s) interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror,” said Gov. Romney.
“That’s what I said,” the president responded.
“You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?”
“Please proceed, governor.”
“I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
This was the now-infamous exchange where Romney could not believe what he was hearing. Are you out of your mind, Mr. President? Everybody knows you said no such thing. And then the moderator, Candy Crowley, really shocked the Governor: “He did in fact, sir.” You could hear the conservative cause, the “scandal” of Benghazi, broadside a bridge abutment. Mitt Romney had no idea Barack Obama had called the attack an “act of terror” the very next day, September 12th.
“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.”
Well that’s embarrassing. How did this happen? Billion dollar campaigns loaded with high-salary political sharks are not supposed to get caught flat-footed and clueless. Something went wrong.
What happened? In the closing months of the campaign, with Romney lagging badly in the polls, Americans were killed in a militia attack on the Benghazi consulate in Libya. And the wingnuts lost their minds. This was the greatest gift of campaign 2012 — Americans attacked and killed by violent Muslims. Perhaps even terrorists. Thank You, Ronaldus.
Before he even knew who or how many people had died, Mitt immediately hammered the president: “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” The allegation was laughably silly. This sort of craven political behavior was ridiculous, if it wasn’t appalling.
So the circus continues. Though the truth is easily available to everyone, the right wing’s calculated outrage remains. Conservatives are no more closer to recovering their sensibilities than they were while watching the coffins return from overseas. Here was Ann Althouse blogging tonight’s debate:
. . Crowley helps Obama by saying “He did in fact, sir… He did in fact call it an act of terror. It did as well take 2 weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you’re correct about that.” Jeez, Crowley is way overparticipating! And the audience applauds her!
. . [ADDED: We're checking the transcript on the Rose Garden speech and the word "terror" (or "terrorist" or "terrorism") is not in it! Am I wrong? That really tripped up Romney, so if he wasn't wrong, I condemn Crowley.][AND: He said "outrageous attack," but certainly nothing like "act of terror."]
Partisan hysteria, the stupefaction. Ann can’t read or watch a video in this state, so by all means give her a blog and let her fact check reality. Instapundit:
CANDY CROWLEY INSERTED HERSELF INTO THE DEBATE, OUTRAGEOUSLY, to break up Romney’s most dramatic moment, when Romney was questioning what Obama said the day after the attack in Benghazi. Obama had said he’d called the attack an “act of terror” and Romney was staring him down about it. Crowley broke up the showdown, saying “He did in fact call it an act of terror,” which took the wind out of Romney’s sails. We were advised to check the transcript, but the dramatic moment was lost. The transcript shows Romney was right, and Crowley and Obama were wrong.
And then the update: “ADDED: The phrase “acts of terror” does appear in the remarks…” Aw jeez. The scoreboard will reflect that there are now two professors of law who can’t comprehend a transcript. But wait: it’s ANN ALTHOUSE AGAIN. She’s covering for Glenn. What a talent she is, humiliating two wingnut sites simultaneously. The astute bloggers:
HUGE BREAKING NEWS: OMFG: OBAMA LIED AND CROWLEY SWORE TO IT: OBAMA DID NOT UTTER THE WORD TERROR AT THE ROSE GARDEN SPEECH!
OBAMA SAID AT THE DEBATE, THAT HE “CALLED THE ATTACK ON BENGHAZI AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY AFTER THE ATTACK DURING HIS STATEMENT IN THE ROSE GARDEN” AND THE TRUTH IS HE MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT.
SO OBAMA LIED IN THE DEBATE – AND CROWLEY SWORE TO IT!
IF OBAMA DIDN’T LIE THEN HE’D HAVE NOT A FREAKIN. THING TO SAY.
REPEAT: ROMNEY WAS RIGHT ON THE FACTS AND OBAMA WRONG. OBAMA LIED TONIGHT.
UPDATE: OMFG HE DID SAY ACTS OF TERROR. THAT’S NOT THE SAME AS TERRORISTS HE LIED. Here was Breitbart’s crack at it:
Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama’s side and the crowd exploded.
Here’s what Obama said that day:
“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.”
Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this “act of terror” to … a mob action over a YouTube video — not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again.
The context of the quote isn’t in your allegations, it’s in the quote. Just read it above. But for that “two weeks before he used it again” nonsense, wrong again:
On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
G’night, god bless. The Daily Mauler does its best:
You could say that Obama was calling this attack an “act of terror.” Or you could say that Obama was using the phrase “act of terror” in the vicinity of discussing the “attack” to come close to labeling it an act of terror without actually, logically doing so, preserving his freedom to not do so in the future. He only used the phrase after talking about the original 2001 9/11 attacks, after all. Maybe those were the “acts of terror” that wouldn’t shake our resolve, etc. that Obama was talking about.
No. Not close. Let’s put the nonsense to rest. This was also Obama on the 13th, in Colorado. His message was crystal clear:
“So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America,” he said.
On September 12th and 13th, the President called the attack in Benghazi “acts of terror” three different times. So enough.