The Benghazi Bungle Continues
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Overall, it was verbal violence. It was like watching a syllabic mixed martial arts match. It made me embarrassed for both candidates. It had the usual obfuscations, exaggerations and misinformation propagated by both candidates.
But one part of the debate I found really bizarre was when the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, took sides with Obama regarding whether the incident at Benghazi, Libya, was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others died in the attack on Sept. 11.
During the debate, Obama said this:
“The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
Romney then took the president to task:
“... You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration. ... I – I – I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
That’s when Obama said “Get the transcript” and Crowley stuck up for him.
Crowley: “It – he did in fact, sir. ..,. call it an act of terrorism.”
This was bizarre for several reasons.
First was the fact that Crowley took sides. That is cardinal sin of debate moderating, isn’t it? You don’t take sides.
Next, the issue she decided to take sides on is a matter of nuance and interpretation that is far from black and white. Did Obama call the Benghazi incident a terrorist attack during his Rose Garden remarks?
Well, kind of, maybe.
It got even more bizarre when, right after she sided with Obama, Crowley told Romney he was right, too.
Crowley: “He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take – it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”
How could those two seemingly mutually exclusive positions both be right?
But the crowning foray into bizarro world came after the debate, when Crowley went on CNN to walk back her errant conduct and explain herself. It was one of the top five most babbling bits of TV nonsense I have ever heard. She said Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word.” Apparently Romney was right, but he was wrong.
So what did Obama say in the Rose Garden that caused all the furor? He said this:
“... 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.”
That, to me, is clearly an attempt to link the Benghazi attack to the anti-muslim film. Obama says he rejects denigrating anyone’s religion, which the film clearly did.
But even if somebody’s religion is denigrated – which it was, by the film – it doesn’t justify “this type of senseless violence.” What type of senseless violence? The Benghazi type, of course. The reason he was speaking was in response to Benghazi.
Later, toward the end of his remarks, he talked about the original 9/11 and how the nation was mourning and how he visited Arlington National Cemetery. He talked about the war in Afghanistan and how he visited and thanked wounded warriors at Walter Reed hospital on that day.
And then this:
... “And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
“As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
“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.”
Now certainly, Obama could argue that he was lumping in Benghazi with the original 9/11 and other “acts of terror.”
Fair enough.
But here’s where Romney biffed it. Romney shouldn’t have questioned what Obama meant in the Rose Garden. Obama says the day after the Benghazi attack, he called it terror.
Fine.
Take Obama at his word. And then ask him these questions:
If that’s the case, why did your administration send U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out four days later to tell audiences of five Sunday morning news shows that Benghazi wasn’t a terror attack, but a spontaneous event related to the anti-Muslim film?
You and others in your administration said you didn’t want to rush to judgment and call it a terror attack until you had all the facts, so why did you call it a terror attack the day after it happened?
Why did your press secretary, Jay Carney, craftily avoid calling it a terror attack when asked about it point blank by the White House press corp?
Why did you yourself go on “The View” and David Letterman’s “The Late Show” and suggest that it wasn’t a terror attack?
Why was it a full two weeks after the attack before you stated publicly – aside from your remarks in the Rose Garden, of course – that it was a terror attack?
Finally, if you knew it was a terror attack a day after it happened, why did your administration try to convince the American people otherwise for a couple of weeks?
Romney also should have asked Obama about news reports – like the following one from Reuters – that seem to show the administration’s failure or unwillingness to provide adequate security.
In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
I think Mitt Romney totally blew a great opportunity to expose a significant Obama weakness. With regard to Benghazi, his administration was either incompetent or deceptive – or both.
I still would like to hear answers to these questions. The next debate is on foreign policy, so maybe I will.[[In-content Ad]]
Overall, it was verbal violence. It was like watching a syllabic mixed martial arts match. It made me embarrassed for both candidates. It had the usual obfuscations, exaggerations and misinformation propagated by both candidates.
But one part of the debate I found really bizarre was when the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, took sides with Obama regarding whether the incident at Benghazi, Libya, was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others died in the attack on Sept. 11.
During the debate, Obama said this:
“The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
Romney then took the president to task:
“... You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration. ... I – I – I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
That’s when Obama said “Get the transcript” and Crowley stuck up for him.
Crowley: “It – he did in fact, sir. ..,. call it an act of terrorism.”
This was bizarre for several reasons.
First was the fact that Crowley took sides. That is cardinal sin of debate moderating, isn’t it? You don’t take sides.
Next, the issue she decided to take sides on is a matter of nuance and interpretation that is far from black and white. Did Obama call the Benghazi incident a terrorist attack during his Rose Garden remarks?
Well, kind of, maybe.
It got even more bizarre when, right after she sided with Obama, Crowley told Romney he was right, too.
Crowley: “He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take – it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”
How could those two seemingly mutually exclusive positions both be right?
But the crowning foray into bizarro world came after the debate, when Crowley went on CNN to walk back her errant conduct and explain herself. It was one of the top five most babbling bits of TV nonsense I have ever heard. She said Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word.” Apparently Romney was right, but he was wrong.
So what did Obama say in the Rose Garden that caused all the furor? He said this:
“... 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.”
That, to me, is clearly an attempt to link the Benghazi attack to the anti-muslim film. Obama says he rejects denigrating anyone’s religion, which the film clearly did.
But even if somebody’s religion is denigrated – which it was, by the film – it doesn’t justify “this type of senseless violence.” What type of senseless violence? The Benghazi type, of course. The reason he was speaking was in response to Benghazi.
Later, toward the end of his remarks, he talked about the original 9/11 and how the nation was mourning and how he visited Arlington National Cemetery. He talked about the war in Afghanistan and how he visited and thanked wounded warriors at Walter Reed hospital on that day.
And then this:
... “And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
“As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
“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.”
Now certainly, Obama could argue that he was lumping in Benghazi with the original 9/11 and other “acts of terror.”
Fair enough.
But here’s where Romney biffed it. Romney shouldn’t have questioned what Obama meant in the Rose Garden. Obama says the day after the Benghazi attack, he called it terror.
Fine.
Take Obama at his word. And then ask him these questions:
If that’s the case, why did your administration send U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out four days later to tell audiences of five Sunday morning news shows that Benghazi wasn’t a terror attack, but a spontaneous event related to the anti-Muslim film?
You and others in your administration said you didn’t want to rush to judgment and call it a terror attack until you had all the facts, so why did you call it a terror attack the day after it happened?
Why did your press secretary, Jay Carney, craftily avoid calling it a terror attack when asked about it point blank by the White House press corp?
Why did you yourself go on “The View” and David Letterman’s “The Late Show” and suggest that it wasn’t a terror attack?
Why was it a full two weeks after the attack before you stated publicly – aside from your remarks in the Rose Garden, of course – that it was a terror attack?
Finally, if you knew it was a terror attack a day after it happened, why did your administration try to convince the American people otherwise for a couple of weeks?
Romney also should have asked Obama about news reports – like the following one from Reuters – that seem to show the administration’s failure or unwillingness to provide adequate security.
In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
I think Mitt Romney totally blew a great opportunity to expose a significant Obama weakness. With regard to Benghazi, his administration was either incompetent or deceptive – or both.
I still would like to hear answers to these questions. The next debate is on foreign policy, so maybe I will.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092