During the second presidential debate, Barack Obama attempted to imply he did in fact call the Benghazi Massacre that resulted in the deaths of four Americans a terrorist attack. He was given support for this claim by CNN moderator Candy Crowley. So what did Barack Obama really say? Here’s a video from CNN’s Candy Crowley regarding the actual Obama quote – and she NOW says (after correcting Mitt Romney during the actual debate) that Romney was actually RIGHT – Barack Obama did NOT specifically call the Benghazi Massacre a terrorist attack during his words in the Rose Garden the day after as Obama tried to spin it during the debate tonight. And then for WEEKS after Obama refused to acknowledge Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists.
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 of – 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.
The importance of using the video as the supposed cause of the Benghazi Massacre was then furthered by multiple days of administration officials denying the tragedy in Libya was terrorist related. Barack Obama, some two weeks AFTER the death of Ambassador Stevens, went to the United Nations and once again repeatedly referenced the YouTube video while never ONCE directly calling the ambassador’s death the result of a terrorist attack even though ample evidence had by then confirmed that fact.
Lastly, I wish to point out something very important if America is to take Barack Obama’s seeming presidential debate interpretation of believing the Benghazi Massacre as being a “terrorist attack on the day he gave his speech in the Rose Garden. If President Obama truly believed American citizens – including the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty in well over 30 years, to have died as the result of terrorism, how then does he justify his reaction to that attack by flying to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser on the very same day he gave his Rose Garden speech?
You see, Obama cannot have it both ways here. If he now wants to state he did in fact note that the attack in Benghazi was terrorism the day after it happened how little importance did he consider that deadly attack against America as he continued flying about the country raising cash for his political campaign? Why did so many in his administration repeatedly deny the Benghazi Massacre as being the result of a coordinated terrorist attack? Why did he make no mention of it as such during his speech to the United Nations weeks later?
I included this timeline in another post that came from Insider. I am going to re-post it here now.
Don’t let Barack Obama get away with this disgusting deception. He must be held accountable for what he REALLY said regarding the Benghazi Massacre – both on that day in the Rose Garden, and in the days and weeks that followed.
__________________________
• April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.
• March, 2012: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.
• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.
• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.
• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.
• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.
(NOTE: There was already several attacks against American personnel prior to this video being released. How then is the video to blame for those and subsequent attacks?)
• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.
• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”
• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.
• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”
• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”
• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.
• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”
• Sept. 19: National Counter Terrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.
• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20,Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”
• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”
• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”
• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.
• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
Candy Crowley should be held accountable for incorrectly disputing Governor Romney in this debate forum with millions of viewers watching. An open apology on all cable channels at prime time and in all major newspapers would be appropriate but still doesn’t make up for her being a biased buttinski.
…and for cutting off Romney when he brought up Obama’s Chinese investments and Caymen Islands bank account…doesn’t fit with Obama’s or Candy’s progressing e agenda…bastards.
She also jumped right in with Barry to stop Mittens from talking too much about Fast & Furious. They both shut him down. That was one of those Barry jumping out of his seat moments.
Speaking of Miz Creepy Crawley, did she borrow that ugly black jacket from Raddish, Bruno, or Sandra Floozy?
She’s an absolute embarrassment to the field of Journalism. What a hack.
I hope she goes down with that sinking ship, CNN.
The thing is, she won’t be retracting in prime time on all channels. But one thing is for sure, it will be the water cooler talk on all the channels tomorrow…that she waited until after the debate to walk back her statement. That puts her squarely in the Obama camp, where at this stage in the game, the media isn’t going to be happy about…since the tide is shifting against them and Barry.
Has Obama EVER taken a class in economics/
I have never seen anyone so willingly present himself as an economics R
Retard.
Sorry, long night last night.
UM has a quick draw….and God works in strange ways…
Crowley’s mistake is the number 1 takeaway from this debate. As such, this will lead to far more discussions of Obama’s false narrative, and inform many more people of those facts, ….now back as headline news…And so too Obama’s heartless response… jetting off for more bags of cash…with nary a nod to the truth of his tortured and murdered high level employee…And then only as a photo op for he and the evil Hillary as they continued their lies re the “video.”.
This will also lend more interest to the the next debate…. which is the foreign policy debate….And many will be more informed and ready and waiting for just that discussion on Libya and exactly what Obama’s response was and how he lied and attempted to lie some more. Yes, God works in strange ways…Pray…get out and volunteer.
The only important thing to consider is the Luntz control group of likely voters having previously voted for Obama, swinging for Romney.
As for any debate, the contents are second to the overall impression given by the participants.
Most viewers are not following politics like us and watch the debates to get to know the candidates, not to hear the facts.
So the Libya story will go on, but the impression will last.
And O was once again “SMALL”. If somebody were to have seen the debate without knowing which of the participants was POTUS, he would have guessed Romney.
The image of Romney which is lasting in my mind, is the clear blue eagle eye look Romney sent Obama at the end of the showdown on the word terrorist alledgely spoken in the Rose Garden. Forceful, lethal, unmitigated.
What was your favorite moment?
Favorite moment? When Romney mentioned that he wanted to help the middle class because the middle class has been BURIED for the last 4 years.
I’d say the “eagle eye,” moment, as you call it was probably my favorite too, the whole scene in that way Mittens looked and moved. He was so clearly right and “on the war path” in the sense of being a truth warrior,.
I loved that Mittens was intent on not letting Barry slip in his glib lies and gloss over facts. Goodness knows Candya$$ wasn’t going to ask Barry for “specifics!”
I have no use for Frank Dunce. Here he is making fun of Michele Bachman, until he sees that he is being recorded; then he tried to pretend it was all a joke. Frank Luntz unplugged”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaW2nK5pEA
The thing is, she won’t be retracting in prime time on all channels. But one thing is for sure, it will be the water cooler talk on all the channels tomorrow…that she waited until after the debate to walk back her statement. That puts her squarely in the Obama camp, where at this stage in the game, the media isn’t going to be happy about…since the tide is shifting against them and Barry.
Favorite moment? When Romney mentioned how the middle class has been buried for the last 4 years!
Sorry about the double posts. They kept disappearing when I posted.
My comments disappear also, but only for a breif time. You have to be a little patient. I think they go on moderation for few minutes. They eventually get posted.
She was supposed to be impartial. She was there to moderate, not to try to back up only one of the debater’s statements.
If you’re supporting one, in a debate, and not the other, than you are obviously not impartial and unbiased.
Another way she repeatedly was trying to give Obama the advantage was in forcing Romney to stay on topic and allowing Obama to talk about whatever he felt like.
There was a question on gun control. MR answered it, and brought up Fast & Furious in his answer. Obama rebutted by going on a long tangent about education, obviously not wanting to go anywhere near F&F. Obama’s yammering had NOTHING to do with gun control and yet she allowed him to ramble on.
Romney, on the other hand, would be interrupted by both Obama and Crowley if he said 2 words that were off topic.
She was the worst. I don’t believe they can’t get anyone, who is somewhat impartial, to moderate these debates.
Or at least someone who has some self-control and tries to reign themselves in, before deciding to half-ass fact check, in the middle of it.
That being said, Romney really needs to staple BHO to the wall next week and not let him ignore anything he doesn’t feel like answering.
I really believe if Romney played his cards right, he could cause Obama to have a “Howard Beale from the movie Network” type breakdown on national TV.
Candy Crowley is the poster child for the biased, sycophantic press blindly supporting and covering for the sacred cow-ardly Barack HUSSEIN Obama at every turn.
Last night provided a clear and true picture that even the dullest couldn’t miss:
RNC had better paint the picture fast and correct the facts.
Romney had about 9% less speaking time and Crowley intervened to protect Zero several times.
She tried to cover for him over Benghazi and failed – not only with incorrect facts, but by closing down discussion that would have exposed Zero’s alibis.
Crowley looked large and intervened in direct breach of the rules for the Townhall Debate.
Crowley owes Mitt Romney a PUBLIC apology – and she owes the American people, one as well.
But, pigs don’t fly.
One point I forgot to mention last night:
It seemed clear to me that Obama had been presented with the questions and Romney hadn’t. Obama had a look of expectation when questions were posed to him, and he had an immediate, seemingly pre-prepared comeback. Despite this, and Candy’s inability to maintain objectivity, Romney did great.
This morning on FNC, they read a viewer comment that summed it up perfectly. I’m paraphrasing:
“I knew Romney was a great debater, but to hold his own debating both the other candidate AND the moderator…WOW!”
You’re right. Barry seemed to know what questions were coming. If Creepy Crowley hadn’t helped him out, he would have done even worse.
I am getting to be very fond of Mittens. Also, millions of people saw Romney being ganged up on last night by those two. We saw how he dealt with it,nobly.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if people are not only admiring Romney more the more they seem of him, but also feeling as though they want to defend him. I know I do.
What bothers me is I can’t relate to “undecideds” at all and therefore it’s hard to know how they will think re vote for Romney. I only watched the first part of the Focus group on Fox. The majority seemed to act positively about Romney and will probably vote for him this time around. But who knows. Then I watched another interviewed today and he still was undecided – and I think he was a doctor – so he is no “dummy”. But what’s obvious is these people don’t have a clue about who the “real” Obama is and what their agenda is. It’s so easy to find out these days but yet they don’t know. ????
Crowley – yes, definitely wrong in her interference for Obama. But no surprise.
Think Romney did as he usually does with a solid, factual, self-disciplilned performance. I liked how he still stood firm and did his best to not let Crowley cut him off when he wanted to make important points.
Libya – glad that came up & Romney tried to make the points about that but he didn’t seem to know about that tricky statement where he said “terror acts” and Obama did & was told obviously to try to get away with that. They probably had him say that in the Rose Garden with those words that are “not clear” on purpose of course. Don’t know how many will give him a pass b/c of that or even care for that matter. We forget that just b/c WE care, a lot don’t.
Twitter Reaction on Fox — just saw on Fox Bus. that it was more or less a “draw”, Romney did best when talking about energy independence/China/economy. Big negatives re Crowley. Maybe we’ll hear more about that today.
Anyway, what always bothers me about this bunch is their ignorance at this stage and if Romney campaign would point out the dangers of his re-election to America/his agenda (using facts) instead of just saying you’ll get more of the same, they would win them over. People still can’t come to think that Obama is boldly lying to them about how he loves America, free markets like he did last night. They tend to want to give him another chance. It takes more to get rid of a sitting President unfortunately. Plus I feel it’s their duty to do that and if they don’t, they will all be complicit in bringing the disasters that we speak of here.
Maybe the numbers aren’t enough that will harm, don’t know.
Next debate? Don’t know if it’ll happen. It’s on foreign policy & we know about that. Depends on what happens or doesn’t happen before then I guess. He’s already got that “act of terror” thing done – can’t use that anymore.
So, we wait on pins and needles, like a lot of us have for 4 years…………
Pray and act/volunteer, etc.!!!!
What manufactured crisis or war will Obama/Jarrett create or start between now and next Monday in order to say, sorry I have to cancel my appearance at the debate: too busy being President to take time away. What will be the false flag?
If he does show up for the foreign policy debate, I think it will be devastating to the manchild Manchurian President. He just might break down and have a Howard Beale moment as Chunkdog said. 90 minutes of discussing Hussein Obama’s lies and failed policies will seem like an eternity to him. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a forked tongue, red eyes or an Exorcist type voice come from this man as he is found out to be the ugly human he really is. Maybe even a Linda Blair head spin.
It was worth watching to see Romney go after him, and the look on Obama’s face when he did. Challenged much?
It was the same look Joe Wilson got when he truthfully told the liar, “You lie!”