Context is everything. It’s something that a good journalist will strive to provide in order to give a quote, an incident, or a situation report a wider understanding. This was not the case in last night’s debate as the moderator, Candy Crowley, took time to interrupt Mitt Romney’s challenge to Obama on his handling of the Benghazi debacle. The Obama administration for two weeks after the coordinated terrorist attack, repeatedly insisted that it was a YouTube video responsible for the attack on the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
The entire context of President Obama’s Sept 12th speech in the Rose Garden with Sec-State Clinton standing by his side, was the YouTube video, and the quip about terror was in the context of a mob rampaging the consulate in Benghazi, supposedly outraged over a anti-Islam film. Romney was 100% correct in his chastisement of Obama’s handling of the fiasco, and his dogged refusal to admit that it was a coordinated terrorist attack on a U.S. installation on 9/11.
Obama lied, and the media was there to help with the damage control. But you know what, more and more people are online these days, and will fact check what was said and weigh out the difference for themselves. In that, I have confidence that both Obama and the media will be loathed even more than they are already.
Here’s what Obama said that day:
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.
Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this “act of terror” to … a mob action over a YouTube video — not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again.
Let’s not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror.