Here's something interesting, folks: a supposed "fact check" by the AP vs. "actual facts" outlined by David Podhoretz in today's New York Post.
First... from the AP:
Mitt Romney wrongly claimed that it took 14 days for President Barack Obama to brand the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya a terrorist act.
THE FACTS: Obama is correct in saying that he referred to Benghazi as an act of terrorism on Sept. 12, the day after the attack. From the Rose Garden, he said: "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. ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."
Hmm... so according to the AP, President Obama was the one "telling the truth" while Governor Romney was... supposedly... "wrong."
And while Romney’s confused mishandling of the sole question on the administration’s bizarre conduct after the slaughter in Benghazi almost seemed to turn a certain liability for the president into an asset, that was largely due to a rather shocking intervention from the moderator, Candy Crowley — an intervention that will only serve to keep a painful issue for the president alive and kicking at him.
She flatly told Mitt Romney he was wrong for challenging the president’s contention that he had called Benghazi a terrorist act in his first remarks on the matter. Crowley not only behaved inappropriately by inserting herself, but even more appalling, she was incorrect.
The president’s remarks that next morning specifically referred to the killings as an “attack” twice, as an “act” twice and as a “senseless act of violence” once. This was a clear signal at the time that a deliberate choice had been made not to label it as an act of terrorism.
The speech’s reference to “acts of terror,” by contrast, followed a paragraph about 9/11 and clearly referred back to that.
Crowley herself, in a moment that should live in journalism infamy, conceded later that Romney “was right in the main.”
Well, well... context is indeed everything, folks. And it seems to me that either the AP employs total incompetents even while thousands of seasoned journalists remain unemployed after years of media downsizing... or... more likely... the AP "fact checkers" didn't want readers to have to bother with... er... context.
Folks. There's a record. There's a clear record... a clear timeline. Heck... you can go back to 9/11/12 right here on Usually Right and read the various stand-alone posts and newsbites concerning the progression of the "Libya story."
But, folks... even those of you who yearn to defend Obama, HRC, and the Democrats on this one know in your heart of hearts that for literally weeks the Obama administration (led by... er... President Obama) offered what can be most charitably referred to as a "false narrative" on what happened in Benghazi.
As to Obama's Rose Garden remarks... the remarks in question... feel free to read the FULL transcript for yourselves, folks!
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Nope. Barack Hussein Obama is no William Jefferson Clinton. Yes... Obama too is a lawyer... a politician... but in terms of "getting away" with "parsing" and "lawyerly evasions and distortions"... no... Obama isn't nearly as "talented" as good ol' boy Bill is.
No, folks... Obama's not going to get away with this one. Even with the mainstream media attempting to provide cover, there's simply too much out there for Obama to get past.
Heck... just a Crowley backtracked in real time last night even while she was attempting to buttress Obama's position... just as she was forced to add "It did as well take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea out there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You [Gov. Romney] are correct about that."
Followed by a post-debate admission by Crowley, "So [Romney] was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word."
Again, folks... no need to play "gotchya." It's evident what happened. There's a clear record.
Here's my point though: The AP doesn't care about the record. They don't care about context. (At least the two AP reporters and their editor responsible for the piece highlighted above don't!)
The saddest part about the AP's betrayal of basic journalistic ethics? Even while making it clear what "message" they hoped readers would come away with (namely, that Obama told the truth while Romney leveled a false charge), they felt constrained to try to cover their asses by tacking on the following:
But others in his [Obama's] administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. It took almost a month before officials acknowledged that those protests never occurred. And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long for that correction to be made or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration.
Nice try, AP, but no... a "better late than never" half-assed attempt at CYA via providing an "after-thought" bit of factual context ain't gonna cut it.
Here's the bottom line "fact check" folks: Last night Obama tried to pull a fast one... Crowley tried to assist him... the AP and other MSM operatives are attempting to do what they can do to cast doubt upon the veracity of Romney's "in the main" point... but... it ain't working!
Nope. Finally... the American People are wising up.