Ordstyrer Candy Crowley korrigerte Mitt Romney da han sa presidenten ikke brukte ordet terror om Benghazi dagen etter det dødelige angrepet. – Han brukte ordet, men så gikk det to uker før han slo fast at det var terror, sa Crowley. – Dere har begge rett, forsøkte hun seg.

Men nå viser utskrifter av statements Obama ga i Rosehaven 12. september at han ikke betegnet Benghazi som terror. Han brukte ordet terror en gang i generell betydning. Det er noe annet. Obama snakker også om videoen, som han tar avstand fra. Det er hva FN-ambassadør Susan Rice også lanserte som forklaring: det begynte med en video-protest som ble utnyttet av andre. Det har adminstrasjonen selv korrigert – det fantes ingen protest.

Jeff Dunetz, editor of the political blog The Lid, skriver på pajamas media.com:

That moderator intrusion was the big focus of the spinmeisters.

Romney spokesman John Sununu said told me the moderator and the President were “dead wrong.”

“The President threw the world out in his statement at  the Rose Garden but never said it was an act of terrorism.  And two weeks afterwards the President said, not in a news conference, not in a passing comment but went to the UN and at the UN, six times blamed it on the video. It was the most dishonest statement I have ever heard by a president in a presidential debate.”

I asked him about the Crowley interruption:

Candy was wrong and Candy had no business doing that and she didn’t even keep the time right.”

The controversy is about a speech the president made on September 12, 2012.

The day after the terror attack in Benghazi, President Obama gave a Rose Garden Speech of 801 words.He mentioned the word terror once near the end of his speech but it was not in description of the horrible attack. When he referred to Benghazi, he said:

  • An attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.
  • this outrageous and shocking attack.
  • attack
  • terrible act
In the speech Obama called the people who perpetuated the attack “the killers who attacked our people.” He did not call them terrorists.
In that Rose Garden speech, the president did allude to that anti-Muslim video which he knew at the time (and we know now) had nothing to do with the attack:

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Eventually he said the “T” word in a general way:

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. 

But the question is, was he talking about that specific attack? It didn’t seem so because he went on to say:

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.

Words are important, especially for this president. If he wanted to call the attack terrorism he would have, but he avoided calling the Benghazi attack “terrorism.” And John Sununu was correct: Candy Crowley, my sometimes stalker, was way out of line.