Right on cue, Fox News Channel and AM radio are hanging Candy Crowley in effigy for fact-checking Romney's "acts of terror" assertion during the climactic section of last night's debate.
Worse, even with the transcript of the president in hand, these idiots continue to say the president didn't use the phrase "acts of terror" in regards to the attack. Not only did he say those exact words, as Crowley and the president noted last night, but he used the singular tense "act of terror" about Benghazi the next day within a speech in Las Vegas.
Oh and here's a shocker. Paul Ryan is lying about it, too.
"It was a passing comment about acts of terror in general, it was not a claim that this was a result of a terrorist attack," Ryan said on ABC's "Good Morning America. "Nobody believed at that Rose Garden speech that the president was suggesting that particular attack was an act of terror."
Here's the transcript of the president's Rose Garden address the day after the attack.
“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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. 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.”
And the next day in Las Vegas:
“No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
If he didn't want to refer to the attacks as "terror" he would've said "no extremists..." or "no loss of our finest brothers and sisters..." or "no attack..."
Besides, if he hadn't said "terror" right away, so what? Would that have somehow diminished the administration's response? Did Bush's use of the word after 9/11 bring back any lost lives or make up for his administration's failure to prevent it? Personally, I would rather have a president who was strong but sensible in the wake of such an attack rather than someone who pops off and invades the wrong country.
Ultimately, the far-right is digging deep to extricate their candidate from this one. Additionally, their misplaced anger fails to mitigate the president's most powerful moments on this topic when he turned to Romney and, with the force of Commander-in-Chief, said, “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.”