CNN’s Crowley Adopts False Right-Wing Claim That Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack

Via Media Matters.

What a shame. It was Candy Crowley who courageously committed an act of journalism in the middle of a presidential debate, daring to fact-check inveterate liar Willard (“Mitt”) Romney in real time. I suppose her standing at CNN has suffered, because truth-telling just isn’t appreciated among the DC media. On CNN right-wing talking points are better than facts, so Crowley is going with the talking points.

The hyper-partisan right-wing Benghazi witch-hunt has produced no new information after NINE congressional hearings, two full-scale investigations, and an SNL parody. Senator John McCain tried to get a select committee established just to re-hash Benghazi. If I were the Senate Majority Leader I would instead assemble a committee to thoroughly investigate the Bush administration’s record on terrorism, starting with the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax letters, and charged with examining the 31 other terrorist attacks on Bush’s watch, including 7 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates.

More info:
Fox And Issa Claim There’s A Difference Between An “Act Of Terror” And A Terrorist Attack

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2013 - 5:58 pm

    That’s amazing! You couldn’t pay me enough to be a reporter these days. There’s not a stitch of honor involved anymore.

    When Candy shut down Mitt Romney in the debate, I just about fell off the couch.

    This “act of terror” vs “terrorist attack” nonsense reminds me of the science vs “sound science” garbage.

  2. #2 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 20, 2013 - 10:34 pm

    Give it up!

    You have to be kidding…instead of this shilling you should attempt to secure the bulkheads of the ship!! That would require throwing this criminal president under the bus.

    It’s sinking from self inflicted torpedoes.

    It’s frankly hilarious if it were not so damn important.

  3. #3 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 20, 2013 - 10:52 pm

    It’s going this way because of the president’s constant lying to the press, they feel betrayed. They lied for him, now he lies to them..it’s a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship, now broken.

    They are upset and are gonna crucify him. More than enough here to fry his ass long and hard…let the grilling begin.

    Bwhahahhahhahaha!!

  4. #5 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 21, 2013 - 9:36 am

    Yes Richard, progressives are generally clueless and usually the last to know..

    • #6 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2013 - 9:43 am

      Clueless is as clueless does. Your comments are entirely fact-free.

  5. #7 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 11:38 am

    Weeks after the event Obama was still blaming it on the video.

    If he called it a terrorist attack on September 12, then why on September 14 did he blame it on the video?

    If he called it a terrorist attack on September 12, then why did Susan Rice a week later blame it on the video?

    If he called it a terrorist attach on September 12, then why did he later blame it on the video to the UN?

    Richard, you can have your own feelings but you can’t have your own calendar.

    • #8 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2013 - 12:20 pm

      It makes no sense to “blame it on the video,” and no government official ever did that. I think the right-wingers are confused, because while our embassy in Libya was not attacked, American embassies in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen were. While the video was cited as a cause of protest, in fact more people are angry about U.S. foreign policy – especially the continued killing of innocent noncombatants in our open-ended world war. Spencer Ackerman:

      “Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, ‘At least 10 to 20 years.’ . . . A spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today – atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America’s Thirty Years War.”

      We have established already that President Obama clearly referred to the assault on the U.S. embassy in Cairo in his U.N. speech. So you don’t get to repeat that false talking point.

      CNN: What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack

  6. #9 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 12:24 pm

    False.

    • #10 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2013 - 12:35 pm

      True!

      • #11 by cav on May 21, 2013 - 5:54 pm

        False, because the selection of of both the starting and the ‘ending’ dates are completely arbitrary.

        We could be looking at another Hundred Year War (or longer).

        Sorry to be a downer.

        • #12 by Larry Bergan on May 21, 2013 - 5:57 pm

          The war to end all wars was the first REALLY BIG ONE and it seems sort of quaint now.

  7. #13 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 1:59 pm

    “no government official ever did that.”

    Oh really? The good part starts around 5:00
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9HBxcpWrX0

    And then again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n679r1IAiT8

    Pat Smith:
    “That Susan Rice, what — she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was — it was because of this film that came out.

    COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?

    SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did.”

    And there’s more!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    So you are wrong wrong wrong.

    Which part of wrong don’t you get?

    • #14 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2013 - 3:21 pm

      Quoting Susan Rice here, from the interview with Bob Schieffer on September 16:

      “What our assessment is, as of the present, is in fact what began, spontaneously, in Benghazi was a reaction to what had transpired hours earlier in Cairo.

      …We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude this was premeditated or preplanned.”

      Clearly that turned out to be wrong, but she was doing her job by presenting the information she was given. If you read my CNN link at #8, you would have found this quote there. Nobody blamed the Benghazi attack on a video. If being wrong on a Sunday talk show was a crime, how can Senator McCain get away with it for so many years?

      And here’s what Secretary of State Clinton said, in the video clip you linked (emphasis added):

      “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

      Completely true statement. Had it not been for timely intervention by local governments, Americans would have been killed in Cairo, Tunis and Sanaa. Secretary Clinton was focused on the big picture, especially American relations with the Mideast. She was doing her job.

      We’ve already gone over Pat Smith and President Obama’s U.N. speech. The right-wing has got zilch.

  8. #15 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 3:20 pm

    Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son’s body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101.html#ixzz2TxrAFARg

    • #16 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2013 - 3:41 pm

      Nakoula went back to jail on a plea bargain for violating terms of his probation after being convicted of bank fraud. Conditions of Nakoula’s probation included not using aliases and not using the Internet without prior approval from his probation officer.

      Again, we see Secretary Clinton focused on the big picture. She had to worry about ALL the embassies and consulates, and our relations with other governments. Believing that what happened in Libya had something to do with events in neighboring countries was a logical assumption to make in the days immediately following, although it turned out to be wrong. Nevertheless, Egypt is FAR more important to U.S. foreign policy than Libya.

      But nowhere in the e-mails or statements by Obama administration officials will you find evidence to support a “blame Benghazi on the video” strategy. That’s a figment of right-wing imaginations.

  9. #17 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 4:22 pm

    You are Jay Carney are the least credible people in America. At least he gets paid to lie. What’s in it for you?

    • #18 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2013 - 4:40 pm

      No lie, just facts.

      • #19 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 6:29 pm

        What facts? You don’t have any at all. Rice lied, Obama lied, Hillary lied, Biden lied. I have the facts. Just ask Bob Schieffer. You got nothing.

        • #20 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2013 - 8:50 am

          You haven’t documented one single lie. But maybe we need more investigations and congressional hearings. BTW how many investigations and hearings about the 9/11 attacks in 2001?

  10. #21 by cav on May 21, 2013 - 10:05 pm

    All your Bob Schieffers suk!!

  11. #22 by Larry Bergan on May 21, 2013 - 10:34 pm

    Bob Schieffer has his job for a reason; he’s deceitful enough to be an FOB.

    I hate inside jokes as much as anybody, but let’s see if brewski can figure that one out. Apparently, it’s been purged from the internet.

  12. #23 by brewski on May 21, 2013 - 10:40 pm

    So the words coming directly from the lips of the new President of Libya was that it was a planned premeditated attack, and literally minutes later Susan Rice contradicted him by parroting the lies and political bull-shit fed to her from the Chicago thug machine. Which part of that is Bob Schieffer’s fault?

  13. #24 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 21, 2013 - 11:27 pm

    It’s the wonderful whizzer of OZ Richard, never mind that funny little man writing posts behind the curtain…he’s high on crack, moochelle’s to be exact..

    It’s going to be fun watching you be nixon for obama…

    “He is not a crook”..

    Bwhahahhahaa

  14. #25 by cav on May 22, 2013 - 6:05 am

    I don’t believe any of this is so much a defense of Obama and his team as it is further condemnation of those who attempt to make political points – the central argument of which always seems to be, “Well if ‘we’ maligned the White House, obviously the WH could have released the real emails any time to disprove it, therefore ‘we’ didn’t do it intentionally.” But they never go for the real complaints like DroneWar. Why do you suppose that is.

    Because “getting a fake narrative into the press” isn’t at all a motive? Nope not at all. Because, we all know all that what is needed to dislodge false narratives is for the truth to be told sometime later. .I suspect the truth is something that escapes them even more that the WH. Feint praise, I know, but…

    Tell lies often enough (see Iraq has WMD, I am not a crook) and they begin to sound like the truth. Now where have we heard that before.

  15. #26 by cav on May 22, 2013 - 6:40 am

    But not word one about the Simpering Deserter’s Noble, Right and True billions-off-the-books ‘misadventure’ – all on a proven lie.

  16. #27 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 22, 2013 - 9:03 am

    Richard “warnick” Nixon and cav, whatever it takes for this criminal president.

    I told you this is about obama using the press to facilitate his nefarious plans, lying to them, after they lied their pants off for him. There is nothing for it and obama’s presidency is OVER.

    Thermidorian Reaction due to revolutionary excesses is a law. obama is twisted in it like a Irish Lord ugly fish in a gill net..

    Speaking of nobel, anyone need that prize for their doormat? Our president is a drone murder terrorist criminal, and there is no fixing that. Let impeachment begin..we failed with bush, let’s not screw this one up..

    • #28 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2013 - 10:18 am

      Is It Watergate? A Handy Flow Chart

      IMHO the failure to impeach Bush/Cheney means that impeachment is off the table forever.

      • #29 by brewski on May 22, 2013 - 8:18 pm

        What were they going to impeach them for? For the war that most of the Democrats voted FOR?

        • #30 by Richard Warnick on May 23, 2013 - 7:19 am

          Both President Bush and VP Cheney openly confessed on TV to multiple felony violations of federal law. Have you forgotten?

          In actual fact, Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq AUMF 147-111. Although some Dems made the mistake to trust Bush with the authorization to use military force, they may have assumed that he would abide by the U.N. Charter. Remember the AUMF empowered Bush to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.” But the Security Council never authorized an invasion, and the USA launched an illegal war of aggression.

          • #31 by brewski on May 23, 2013 - 9:12 am

            Tell it to Harry Reid.

  17. #32 by cav on May 22, 2013 - 5:30 pm

    You can’t besmirch cav. He’s got his jack booted truncheon wielding anonymity as a shield.

    As for the state of our political layer, well, it’s been in the shitter for decades. Supporting what works, applying energy to what we hope can be made to work, and developing ‘work-arounds’ where necessary / possible, is about all we’ve got.

    Which is as much to say I don’t have a lot of faith in Ron Paul either. Nobody’s doin’ it. Nobody can do it. It’s time we supported Nobody!

  18. #33 by cav on May 23, 2013 - 1:06 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: