Candy Crowley: “Why Didn’t the President Just Say, Yeah, It Was a Terrorist Attack?”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


oc

An alternative question would be why Candy Crowley chose to disrupt the debates with the false claim that Obama did say it was a terrorist attack, which she has been walking back ever since.

Well we know why she did it. And we know why suddenly she and the media are treating Benghazi like a scandal. It’s a show of force over the AP tapping to remind Obama that his free ride and Teflon coating comes from a friendly media apparatus and that the media can start eating him for breakfast if it chooses to.

CROWLEY: And so he did say in an interview in CBS which we later learned after the election, but a week and a half after Susan Rice was on, he did say he wasn’t sure if it was a terrorist attack in a CBS interview.

PFEIFFER: No one was sure at that point. That’s the point. That’s why, as you look at the e-mails, the intelligence community –

CROWLEY: Well, no, the president –

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Libya, they were sure of it and the CIA seemed pretty sure of it.

PFEIFFER: Let’s distinguish between two things. Was it an act of terror? Absolutely. And the president called it the day after in the Rose Garden. Was al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliated extremists or an active terrorist group involve in a premeditated attack? No one knew that at the time and that’s exactly why the talking points were written by the intelligence community, by the CIA as –

CROWLEY: So, why wouldn’t the president just say, yeah, it was a terrorist attack?

PFEIFFER: He already called it acts of terror. What we didn’t know yet was whether it was a premeditated attack by a terrorist group or something that had come as a result of protest or the video that had sparked outrage across the Middle East that week.

Obama didn’t actually call it an act of terror. He said that acts of terror, plural and unspecified, wouldn’t get us down. At the same time he avoided calling it a terrorist attack when directly asked about it on 60 Minutes and The View.

  • Johnconrad

    That was actually Romney's "Newt" moment.

    He could have tore into Crowley and continued the momentum he garnered in the first debate by showing conservatives his natural distaste and distrust of media enemies.

    But, that's just it.

    Romney doesn't have it in him to do that.

    Which is why this needs to be the last of his type the Republicans nominate.

  • surfcitysocal

    I have just one word for Crowley: hypocrite.

  • tagalog

    Crowley can be as much of a hyprocrite as she is proved to be, but her current criticism of Obama helps.

    Too bad Romney didn't win the election, but the Benghazi moment in the debates wouldn't have been enough for Romney even if he had been able to demonstrate that Obama was lying. Obama had the momentum; remember, it was a big deal when Obama didn't do so well in the first debate, but he made up for lost ground in the second two debates. Romney just didn't have the juice and that's all there was to it. Benghazi wasn't all that important in the election. People wanted a black president and they were going to vote for the black guy. That 90% of the black vote wouldn't have been altered a whit.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    This might be a blessing in disguise. To have 0'Bama win reelection is scary. But to have him being deflated, if things proceed as they should at this point, might be the best possible outcome for exposing the stupidity and mendacity of the delusional left. I think it clearly discredits the media to even more people as well, and many centrists will abandon the Democratic Party completely.

    I might be thinking too optimistically, but this whole pack of scandals might be a sort of miniature awakening for some Americans.

  • http://twitter.com/WackoTurds @WackoTurds

    Well you see Candy, he did not have to make such an observation, not so long as he could hide behind reporters like you, and are you not ample cover at that.

    No, so long as you were not fearing for the sanctity of your privacy (a Constitutional right, do you liberals not say?), your e-mail, and telephony, what was to worry? But now you think he should have just come clean?

    With a little help from Iggy:

    Candy, Candy,
    You have had a hole in your heart
    For so long
    You've learned to fake it and
    Just smile along

  • http://twitter.com/HomerAFunes @HomerAFunes

    what Ann answered I didn't know that someone able to make $8478 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this site… up444.c­om

  • kafir4life

    I wonder how long it will be before it comes out that during the debate, Cindy Crowley's breath smelled like President Stinky (BO) Benghazi? She would fall into the "what the right hand possesses" category.

  • digdigby

    " He said acts of terror would get us down' (as lying on the ground without legs for instance).