Remember this clip from President Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview on September 12, where Obama seems to agree the Benghazi attack was more than just a spontaneous demonstration? CBS released it on October 19, and has used it to support the president’s claim that he called the attack “terrorism” from day one.
But, as Bret Baier reports, that wasn’t the whole interview. CBS has just released new footage of Obama declining to call the attack terrorism when pressed, saying it’s “it’s too early to tell”:
KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
Read Baier’s full analysis above, which gets into why this is so critical for the Benghazi timeline. In short, it’s a clear refutation of Candy Crowley, the White House, Obama’s comments during the debate, and the whole hopelessly spin-able “but he said it in the Rose Garden speech!” media. This interview was conducted immediately after Obama’s Rose Garden address. If the president had actually intended to call Benghazi a terrorist attack in the speech, he should have corrected Kroft when Kroft said “This morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack.”
But he didn’t. In fact, when asked straight-up if he believed the attack was terrorism, Obama pointedly declined to use the t-word, saying “it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.” He also called the attackers “folks,” which isn’t typically how you refer to terrorists.
Obama’s “acts of terror” comments in the Rose Garden were exactly what they sounded like — weasel-words designed to give the White House cover on whatever narrative it chose to put out. He couldn’t answer Kroft’s question unequivocally, because at that point the White House was trying to avoid calling it a terrorist attack.
Why did CBS wait until two days before the election to release this? Why didn’t they release it immediately after the debate, since it contradicted a major point of contention? So far, no word from the network other than this non-response response (via Politico): “We’re proud of our Benghazi coverage, which from Libya to Washington has been the most comprehensive original reporting of any network.”
You cannot be serious. This pathetic parsing is all you got? Folks? What would you prefer? Bush called them "people". "The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Acts of terror vs. terrorist attacks? The conservative movement is a comedy show. Next you'll be parsing the meaning of the word "is". You have become what you despise.
You're kidding, right? THAT is the best you've got? n nIn case you don't recall it, I'll remind you – your guy & his tried to tell us the Benghazi attack was all about a stupid video & didn't abandon that fable until compelled to do so by people on the inside who refused to carry that water any further. n nFor the love of Pete – could you guys just tell the truth ONCE?
Wow, CBS withheld essential information that could have been damaging to the Democratic incumbent. Who'd have thought that was possible. Until now, I only thought they were capable of manufacturing evidence to hurt a Republican incumbent. But I guess outright falsehoods carry more significant penalties than sins of omission.
You miss the point entirely pjcaper. This is a serious charge. This scandal will see the light of day and there will be firings. CBS News needs to answer to the American people why they willfully engaged in a lie.
To avoid full appearance of impropriety of releasing post-election; while maintaining superficiality of being forthcoming. Simply review whom is in charge of CBS as well as the parties and fundraisers that person attends. Then think about how that information is unable to be used in direct advertising. Think about Sarah Palin and how CBS handled that…as only Vice President. Think about Joe Biden allowed to be a full-fledged moron and ignoramus. n nAmazing isn't it. I believe this is called "icing on the cake". CBS has visibly acted by choice and favoritism within the realm of 'journalism'.
This is absolutely astonishing. There is no way that CBS did anything other than try to cover for Obama. They did not show the most important question and answer and, even on the answer they showed, they cut half of Kroft's question. n nAlso, this story and the FOX story missed that Obama on the video said "right" when Kroft said, "Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack,"
Now, we're making progress on the war against terror. It's a different kind of war. Steve re-enacts battles where there used to be infantries moving against infantries and artilleries moving against artilleries and flights of aircraft flying all over the this is a different type of war. These folks are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers who, they'll send youngsters to their death and they'll hide. (Jul. 29, 2002)
I'm not sure I'd call it terrorism either. It's actually just one more battle in the ongoing war of Islam against everybody else._
Wait . . . has Mary Mapes returned to CBS as a producer/editor?
The quote proves conclusively… that Obama is a weasel. Yes, he declined the opportunity to deny avoiding calling the attackers terrorists in so many words. But avoiding that soundbite is not the same thing as denying that they were terrorists or walking back his Rose Garden declaration that the attack was an act of terror. If Romney had accused Obama of being a weasel he would have been on sound ground. Unfortunately he instead accused Obama of not doing the one thing he had, in a weaselly way, done. Alana Goodman is still in the saddle and thinks she's riding somewhere, but the smell of putrifaction she's oblivious to is coming from the horse she's beating.