WaPo: Four Pinocchios for Obama

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

So Obama petulantly averred at yesterday’s presser in response to the single question the media was allowed to ask about the exploding IRS and Benghazi scandals.  If this nonsense sounded familiar, it’s because it is. Obama has repeated it ad naseum since he first made the claim, with the considerable assistance of an incompetent — or dishonest — Candy Crowley in last October’s 2nd Presidential debate.

Then, as now, the claim is demonstrably false. This morning, even Obama’s reliable allies at the Washington Post have acknowledged the gaping disparity between reality and Obama’s version of reality when it comes to this narrative. Their conclusion:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now…

Four Pinocchios


The Post, of course, is being charitable in their verbiage. But Kirsten Powers, hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, was far more blunt in her assessment of Obama’s relationship with the truth last night on FNC’s Special Report:

“He’s so centrally involving himself with these repeated lies. And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack. Last night I went up and I looked at The New York Times how they reported it (Benghazi) the day after. They never reference that we had a terrorist attack against the United States. On September 20th, however, they run a story that says Libyan envoys killing was a terrorist attack. And they say until now White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. That is September 20th. That is The New York Times. Now at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out and over and over saying things like don’t believe your lying eyes?“




(18853 Posts)

Leave a Reply