Sharyl Attkisson reveals CBS complicity in Obama Benghazi 2012 debate coverup—but of course, we already knew that
Sheryl Atkisson claims that, after the second 2012 presidential debate between Obama and Romney, where moderator Candy Crowley backed up Obama’s false assertion that he had called the Benghazi attack “terrorism” early on, CBS intentionally withheld an interview clip that would have contradicted Obama’s point. (Go here to watch Atkisson describe what happened; I would embed the video on the blog but I can’t seem to turn off the autoplay, and I hate autoplay.)
Of course, anyone who has followed Obama’s career knows that this sort of thing was and still is standard operating procedure, not just for CBS but for the entire MSM covering him. In addition, regarding the second debate itself, we really don’t need Sharyl Attkisson to know that the networks covered up for Obama in the aftermath of his “terrorism” assertion. The evidence was plain.
First of all, there was Crowley’s intervention itself and press reaction to it. Crowley was the debate moderator, and she was obviously way out of line in intervening as she did to become a judge, whether she had been right or wrong in her facts. But what network strongly condemned her behavior in the way it deserved? I may be missing something, but I certainly didn’t read that sort of thing afterwards in the MSM. Take a look, for example, at CBS’s reaction at the time, which was to cast the story as that of a journalist (Crowley) under fire from partisans on the right. CBS characterized the evidence of whether Obama had called the Benghazi attack terrorism in his Rose Garden speech as “unclear,” and called Crowley’s intervention largely insignificant, a “misstep” that had little influence on the debate and was merely part of “an increasing move in the news media to challenge erroneous claims.”
As to whether Obama’s Rose Garden statement was actually “unclear,” the word “unclear” is a coverup in itself. It was quite clear, as I demonstrated by actually looking at Obama’s entire Rose Garden speech and analyzing it in the light of Obama’s assertion during that debate and Crowley’s defense of it:
You can see that in his speech Obama characterizes the Benghazi violence and/or its perpetrators ten separate times, in an address that is only about 800 words long in its entirety. Each time, he might have chosen to have said “terrorist attacks” or “terrorists” or “terrorism,” but each time he chose not to do so. Instead, he used the words “attack” or “attackers” seven times, the word “act” twice, and the word “violence” once. He’s not shy about employing adjectives to modify those words, either: he calls them “senseless,” “brutal,” “terrible,”outrageous,” and “shocking.”
Note, however, that the word “terrorist” is never used as an adjective to modify Obama’s descriptions of what happened in Benghazi, nor is it used as a noun to describe the perpetrators. There is no question that the omission was intentional on Obama’s part, because if Obama had wanted to call it a terrorist attack it would have been natural to actually, like, you know, do so.
The only mention of terrorist acts by Obama comes, as I wrote yesterday, in his generic statement of resolve after mentioning both the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (9/11 being an unequivocal act of terrorism, and both wars being part of what used to be called the “War on Terror”).
All the networks should have pointed this out. None of them did. All that was needed was the speech itself, which was in the public domain.
What’s more, even what Attkisson is now asserting—that CBS held back the clip—is actually old news. For example, I wrote a post about it on November 5, 2012, the day before the election, based on a story on Fox by Bret Baier.
From Baier at the time:
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?
Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape ”” why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?
Attkisson adds valuable background to the story by giving some of the behind-the-scenes-at-CBS details, and I applaud her bravery about this and other matters she describes. But the basic story she is telling on this has been known for two years, and we have heard very little about it except briefly, from Fox. I contend that that fact is actually the bigger story, but don’t expect the MSM to cover it.
[NOTE: What’s more—although the answer to this question really is “unclear”—there is an argument to be made that Crowley colluded with Obama in setting up the whole thing for the debate.]
I notice that Democrats’ choice of words deflects attention away from specific perpetrators, e.g., Obama: “senseless,” “brutal,” “terrible,”outrageous,” and “shocking.” These terrorist acts are definitely not “senseless”, which means (Wiki): 2 (esp. of violent or wasteful action) without discernible meaning or purpose. Their purpose is to intimidate, demoralize and defeat the Great Satan.
I blame Romney for lawyering the whole question instead if dealing with the substance. I would have called Obama weak, incompetent, and derilict in his duty as President when he had the entire Mediteranean fleet out there quite capable of leveling any city in the world in about an hour. Then I would have asked him if he had fun in Vegas with Beyonce among the roulette wheels and naked show girls.
/rant
Sounds like Sharyl Attkisson’s book has some interesting details about CBS!
Even if you were not familiar with the text of the Rose Garden speech, every other Obama statement for weeks after the attack centered on the video and the need to curb inflammatory speech. He even went before the UN and endorsed this kind of censorship.
That is not the behavior of a man who believes it was a terrorist attack (or one who wants us to recognize it as such).
I blame Romney for hesitating, and then being a gentleman, when it mattered most.
That debate was THE time for him to look the President of the United States right in the eye and tell him, in whatever diplomatic phraseology he could muster, that this simply was not the truth. He should then have let Candy Crowley have it, in a Reaganesque “I paid for this microphone!” manner.
He should have told her that she can either fact-check the debate or moderate it; pick one and stick with it. Or he could have told her — “Okay, Candy, you have chosen to stop moderating this debate and offer facts and figures. So let’s have them. Roll the tape of the speech, right now. The President and I will wait.”
He did neither, and the country is the worse off for it.
Obama gambled that Romney was too much of a gentleman to stare a sitting President right in the eye and call him a liar, on nationwide TV. Unfortunately, Obama was right.
I have since wondered — if Romney caved during that confrontation, would he not also have caved when negotiating with, say, the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese? But perhaps not. Romney was speaking to the President of the United States — an office he respects highly, I’m sure — and perhaps Romney was not prepared to treat him as an enemy in bare-knuckled combat.
We don’t know, we will never know. What we do know is that CBS News had its thumb firmly on the scales that night, and made no secret of it. (And, quite frankly, Romney should have expected that. Remember the protests that Candy Crowley would not be a balanced moderator, and remember how all those protests were brushed aside before the debate? I do.)
“But of course we already knew that.”
Exactly.
One every count, without exception, conservatives have been proven right. That should embolden us 100X more than it has.
Neo: “this sort of thing was and still is standard operating procedure, not just for CBS but for the entire MSM covering him”
The speed, breadth, and disciplined conformity of media narrative – defensive and offensive – is impressive.
A current example is CJ Chivers’ reporting in the NY Times on chemical munitions found in Iraq injuring troops. You posted about it last month when Gabe Malor posted on the story at Ace of Spades.
On one hand, if Chivers helps veterans receive healthcare for injuries in the line duty, that’s a good result.
On the other hand – relating to your point here about partisan collective action by the MSM – Chivers is making the blatantly revisionist claim that pre-Gulf War WMD were not part of the justification for OIF. More, he implies the pre-Gulf War WMD somehow refute the justification for OIF.
Yet Saddam hiding and insufficiently accounting for Iraq’s as-of-GW stocks was the most contentious issue for UNSCOM and UNMOVIC throughout the 1991-2003 GW ceasefire period and most often cited for the danger of Saddam’s noncompliance.
The 1991-2003 GW ceasefire’s UNSC resolutions, US statutes, and historical record clearly show that the as-of-GW WMD in Chivers’ report corroborate Iraq was in material breach of the UNSC resolutions.
Yet by claiming the WMD in his report did not justify OIF, Chivers is passing off the inference that Saddam was allowed to keep the WMD that Iraq possessed as of the Gulf War.
That’s obviously incorrect, and everyone in the media should be pointing that out. Yet instead of correcting his error, media have widely spread Chivers’ blatant revisionism as historical fact.
In the spring of 1993, ABC did a special on the claims of bias in their coverage of the 1992 election.
I thought it was pretty good though, obviously, late.
And I am nearly certain we won’t see anything nearly as honest from ABC, CBS, or NBC on their coverage of Obama.
Daniel in Brookline:
I will be writing a post in response to your comment, probably tomorrow. Stay tuned!
Neo:
I would embed the video on the blog but I can’t seem to turn off the autoplay, and I hate autoplay.
Thank you, Neo.
Sharyl Attkisson is another in a line of reporters who have outed the truth about the Obama administration. Yet, even if her book sells in the millions, it will only make a tiny wave. The MSM can disparage her and her work. The administration can (and probably will) use nefarious tactics to see that she never works again in any well-paying job in journalism.
The Benghazi cover up is and was just business as usual for the Obama crowd. Here’s a link to a video that shows explicitly how they operate.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/
I cannot watch that video without getting steamed. It’s getting a lot of play on talk radio today. But that means it is only in the conservative echo chamber. Until it gets out in the MSM it means little. And it won’t get out. The lying and conniving will continue until the MSM is in the trash can. When will that be? When some conservative billionaires start buying up some of the media and turning things around.
Daniel in Brookline:
It is tough to come up with the response you suggest in the heat of the battle.
Mitt was too much of a gentleman and he defaulted to his nature.
Since George Stephanopoulos had obviously colluded with the Obama administration earlier that year when he launched into his out-of-left-field obsession with questioning the Republican candidates about birth control (thus laying the groundwork for a coming Democratic meme) it’s not much of a surprise that Candy Crowley was similarly in the tank. You could see it just by the way she talked that she was put up to it. Whether she was manipulated or did it willingly I’m not sure but either way it speaks poorly of her suitability for the role of a neutral questioner.
MSM cover ups and colludes to protect the left, its like there are lions, tigers, and bears oh my. Of course the msm provides support and cover for the left.
I think Romney was also surprised by the trap that had been laid by Obama and Crowley. I, too, wish he had been quick enough to respond, but I imagine he, like the rest of us, was so floored he lost the opportunity while processing it. Who would ever debate-prep such a scenario? Gotcha questions, yes. A planned and coordinated ambush between the moderator and your opponent?
This is why the GOP has got to recognize that the MSM is the enemy, and an active wing of the Democrat party,
And why they should be very, very careful about who they agree to moderate debates.
The gop needs to insist that there be no ‘moderators’ beyond a stopwatch minder. No one in the msm can be trusted to moderate. All questions must come from the audience who are vetted from their party affiliation according to their registration.
If there is aircraft, shoot it down.
Cornhead: I agree. And make no mistake about it, Gov. Romney did far, far better than I would ever have done.
Nonetheless, I believe my point stands. We were watching a job interview for the biggest and most powerful job in the world. Romney should have been ready for ANYTHING.
(No doubt he thought he was. President Obama showed one of his few proven talents that night, one in which he can think outside of the box and take on the pros — lying and dirty fighting. It’s how he got started in Illinois politics, and he’s clearly never forgotten it.)
One can only hope that, for future debates, Republican candidates will indeed be ready for ANYTHING, up to and including the President canceling the debate mid-sentence so as to declare war against a nonexistent enemy. It should go without saying that a debater must also be ready for outright lying, on any subject.
Parker: agreed. The GOP should agree only to debates in which there are two moderators, one chosen by each candidate — say, one for the first half and one for the second half. Alternatively, we can fall back on the Lincoln-Douglas debate format — that would be fun!
Most certainly, we should never again fall for the absurd claim of “Yes, I’m a known leftist journalist who writes leftist drivel for a leftist rag, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be objective as a debate moderator”.
Neo: I’m flattered! Many thanks.
Daniel in Brookline:
The post should be coming tomorrow.
Paul in Brookline, Paul in Boston — agree with both of you.
Romney was brilliant in the first debate, then second guessed himself in the second and paid the price. The Marques of Queensbury instincts (I can picture Neo is rolling her eyes if she’s reading) are his undoing. While people like us appreciate and long for a statesman and scholar to inspire us, most Americans have the attention spans of butterflies.
Romney’s a civil man, who was dealing with an uncivilized and ruthless bunch of thugs.
It will take an incredibly refined, eloquent, and paradoxically ruthless, calculating person to defeat the MSM complex in 2016. Romney just isn’t wired that way – neither are most of the “nice losers” (Thomas Sowell’s words) who the Republicans “love to nominate” (Sowell again).
The Republicans need a guy who’s as comfortable and natural on the John Stewart show as he is with a room full of millionaires.
Crowley is a scumbag, and makes my skin crawl when I watch her disingenuous neutrality as a “pundit”, but Romney himself had a chance to shut them both down and decided to be a nice guy instead.
I don’t believe there are a lot of nice guys who win in politics.
A struggle for the most powerful office on earth is not for the timid or the reluctant – Romney underestimated his opponent’s capacity for playing dirty, and over estimated the power and influence that integrity and politeness would have on the American people. That debate is a classic example of good vs. asshole. Asshole won handily – learn from it, or fail.
Every time the GOP treats the MSM as if they are impartial journalists they do further damage to the party. Why would anyone want to enhance the credibility of people bent on your destruction?
Eventually the party has to have the guts to take the temporary fallout from declaring the MSM an enemy in order to move forward.