Don't mess with John Sununu... at least if you don't come armed with the facts. That's what CNN's Soledad O'Brien found out when she tried to imply that Mitt Romney erred at Tuesday night's debate when he called out Barack Obama over the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
First, a review for those of you who missed the debate and have not followed the timeline regarding the murders in Libya and Obama's public statements regarding them. Make no mistake... Barack Obama and his team purposely tried (and are still trying) to mislead the American people over the cause of the attack.
September 11, 2012 -- Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were murdered in a terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The very next day, Obama gives a speech in the Rose Garden talking about the murders. The full transcript can be found here. The important passage as follows:
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.
When you look at the context of the full speech AND the exact words as presented here, it is clear that this is a GENERIC statement of American policy. Basically, acts of terror will not be condoned. Barack Obama did NOT say that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist act.
Here's the video of the speech:
So... what happened next? September 11, 2012 was a Tuesday. On that Sunday, September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five talk shows and mentioned NOTHING about a terrorist attack. She said over and over again that it was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-muslim Internet video.
Barack Obama was interviewed by Univision and asked if the attack was terrorism. He said he'd get back to them. He was asked on The View... same response. Obama also made a speech to the United Nations and NEVER mentioned that the murders were an act of terrorism. Oh... but he did mention the Internet video six times.
Why is all this important? Because during the debate, Obama made it sound as if he stated it was a terrorist attack the very next day:
Candy Crowley's behavior here was not only unprofessional, it was wrong. She was wrong when she sided with Obama. As pointed out by Fox News, in a interview on CNN, Crowley admitted she was wrong:
The moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point -- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.
"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.
Crowley was referring to the tense exchange in the final half-hour of the debate, when Romney questioned whether Obama had called the attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.
So Romney was right. We all know he was right. For days and days, Barack Obama and his team perpetuated a lie. The murders were never about an Internet video. And yet, that's what he kept saying. At the debate, he tried to step back from that storyline, and Romney would have hammered him on it if not interrupted by Crowley.
Those are the facts, and yet, people like Soledad O'Brien continue to spin for Obama. Watch John Sununu work his magic:
It's unreal that O'Brien tries to label as fact something that does not exist. Obama did not say the Libyan murders were a terrorist act. Yet she goes on and on.
Even though the economy still is front and center on the minds of most Americans, this is a HUGE issue. Please inform people about it. Why would Obama perpetuate a story about a video knowing that it was untrue? What does he have to gain by that? To make it seem that is efforts against terrorism are working? Guess what? They aren't!