LIES: President Gets 4 Pinnochio’s in Benghazi Fact Check from Washington Post
No one would describe the Washington Post as a conservative “patriotic” newspaper that should fear the IRS, so it’s very telling to see that they finally agree with what critics of the mainstream news media have been saying regarding the Benghazi news manipulation. Candy Crowley’s sabotage of the second Presidential debate during the 2012 election should be clearer than ever.
By Glenn Kessler
… So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.
In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
And, just to remind you, here is Candy Crowley’s intervention during the debate… Note, that the article above points out how he stated, generally, that “no act of terror will…” so on and so on. Couple that with his evading calling it a terrorist attack for weeks and you can see the problem with her intervention.