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 —
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.