The right-wingers are out in force today having a hissy fit because Candy Crowley backed up our President when he said he had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror.
Why the confusion?
Here's what President Obama said in a Rose Garden speech the day after the Benghazi attack:
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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
So, yes, President Obama did put the Benghazi attack in the context of "acts of terror" and called it "this terrible act". But right-wing nitpickers are still having a field day claiming that Obama "lied" and Candy Crowley backed him up in his "lie".
Apparently, Obama's Rose Garden speech was just too confusing and ambiguous for right-wingers to understand.
But is it really that confusing?
Let's do some simple substitution to see if the construction of the President's speech was really that open to interpretation:
No willfully ignorant right-wing moron with his own talk show will shake the resolve of this great nation. We will not waver in our commitment to the American people just because of Rush Limbaugh.
Nope, the meaning of those two sentences is totally confusing. We could be talking about ANY willfully ignorant right-wing moron with his own talk show. Lord knows, there are so many.