Why Candy Crowley was right to correct Mitt Romney

It always makes you cringe when an umpire’s call shapes a big game in a meaningful way.  But sometimes, the referee intervenes at a crucial moment and it turns out they were right to do it.

A case in point was Candy Crowley’s challenge to Mitt Romney on his assertions about Libya and President Barack Obama’s response to the attack on US officials in Benghazi.

It was a risky move, but on balance it increased the understanding of the American people about the facts surrounding a tragic, ugly event which has taken a central place in this campaign.

Here’s the context.

Since taking office in 2009, Obama has faced an unceasing barrage of attacks from the right, suggesting that he is “soft” on terror and has failed to use direct and deliberate language when talking about attacks by Islamic radicals.

This narrative reflects a widely held view on the right that Obama might himself be a closeted Muslim, or that he harbors secret “anti-colonial” sentiments which might lead him to intentionally weaken or humble America.

Mitt Romney has embraced this narrative on the campaign trail, accusing the president of “apologizing” for America and of neglecting ties to Israel.

After the attacks in Egypt and Libya, Romney issued a statement accusing the Obama administration of “sympathiz[ing]” with the attackers.

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions,” Romney argued, “but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Before pivoting back to the specifics of this week’s debate — and Crowley’s role — let me pause to point out that these accusations are astonishing.

We’ve become inured to often extreme rhetoric about our presidents, so it’s important to remind ourselves how radical these claims have become.

A major party candidate is accusing America’s commander in chief of aligning himself, at least emotionally or philosophically, with a group that has murdered US officials in cold blood.

In the wider framing of conservative politics, the argument is even more astonishing.  According to the narrative widely held among Republican voters, we have a president who hasn’t simply made policy mistakes or committed errors.

According to their narrative, Obama is actively — albeit subtly and often in secret — working against the interests of America.

Extraordinary claims warrant compelling evidence.  And let me say bluntly that if there were facts to support these claims, they would represent impeachable offenses.

It’s hard to imagine a “high crime and misdemeanor” more treasonous than those conservatives suggest Obama has committed.

But the simple truth is that the facts don’t support right-wing conspiracy theories.  Not even marginally.  By all credible accounts, Obama has waged an extremely aggressive and lethal campaign against terror groups from the Horn of Africa to Pakistan.

Conservatives sometimes suggest that the killing of Osama bin Laden was a one-off event, a sort of accidental “get” that Obama’s administration has trumpeted unfairly.

But the killing of bin Laden came as part of a controversial campaign of highly effective assassinations and drone strikes.

There have been terror attacks on American interests on Obama’s watch, to be sure.  But these have been no more frequent or effective than terror attacks that occurred during the tenures of past presidents, including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

The suggestion that Obama has apologized for America is similarly fact-free.

The assertion has been debunked repeatedly by the Washington Post, by Politifact and by FactCheck.org.  Again, this isn’t a case of gray zones or interpretation.  It is simply a case of factual inaccuracy.

Which brings us, at long last, to Barack Obama’s statement about the Libya attack the day after America’s diplomatic team was attacked and murdered.

In his address from the Rose Garden (full transcript here), the president repeatedly “condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.”

Note that the president didn’t say “this shocking cultural misunderstanding” or “this criminal act.”  The first day after the assault, even as the facts are being gathered, Obama calls it an “outrageous and shocking attack.”

He then said this:  “And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people…”going on to demand that the world community “unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Brutal acts.  Shocking attack.  Killers.  Still not clear enough?

Obama then unambiguously placed the attack in Beghazi in the context of the 9/11 terror attacks, the on-going war on terror and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here is that section of his comments, in full.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.  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.

Conservatives — embracing the skewed narrative context outlined above — have continued to insist that there is still some ambiguity here, some missing declaration of strength or purpose or loyalty.

But that tenuous framework of suspicion only holds up if you ignore the fact that Obama has, in fact, waged an astonishingly ruthless and lethal military campaign against Islamic militants — and the fact that right-wing anxiety about the president’s personal faith and cultural loyalties are not supported by any available evidence.

Of course, Crowley could have allowed this moment to slide.  Americans would have been left with a false sense that there is a gray zone here, a legitimate uncertainty about Obama’s actions and words.

Many Republicans will see bias in her actions — and, no doubt, in this analysis.  Obviously, I disagree.

It goes without saying that there are many aspects of Barack Obama’s foreign policy that bear scrutiny and criticism.  There are important questions still to be answered about why security at American facilities in Libya wasn’t beefed up long ago.

Mitt Romney also has a clear right to say clearly and factually how his foreign policy would differ materially from Obama’s.   It’s our job as reporters to make sure Americans hear about those distinctions, in a fair and factual way, so that voters can make informed choices.

But when politicians say things that are simply inaccurate, particularly when the claims are extraordinary, we have to throw the flag.  Crowley made the right call.

 

 

 

Tags:

68 Comments on “Why Candy Crowley was right to correct Mitt Romney”

Leave a Comment
  1. Dave says:

    “Obama still took off for Las Vegas for a fund raising event. That’s not a leader.”

    I assure you that our leaders can multitask.

  2. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Romney mis-characterized his record on gun control during the debate, according to Lucas Willard, Berkshires Bureau Chief at WAMC:

    “John Rosenthal, Founder of Stop Handgun Violence, says he was the “anti-gun” guy that Romney spoke about during the debate…

    During the debate Romney appears to take credit for bringing “both sides” together for the debate.

    But Rosenthal disputes that Romney had any involvement in the debate process or have a hand in drafting the bill.”

    http://www.wamc.org/post/fact-check-romneys-stance-gun-control

  3. Larry says:

    Tell me, Dave, who told the American people that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Islamic video? Wherever did I get that idea?

  4. Peter Hahn says:

    As a political attack strategy it looks like the Libya gambit has been blown. Sorry Larry bad luck.

  5. Peter Hahn says:

    And …. The next debate is about foreign policy. Romney still has Syria to go negative about though.

  6. oa says:

    The best thing about the debate? More sports metaphors! Crowley is an umpire!
    Worst thing about the debate? Mitt Romney admitted to using affirmative action (binders of women) instead of just hiring the best man for the job, which is always a man. Amirite JDM?
    But Romney still won, and will win the election and guide us all to heaven. Well, some of us.

  7. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Let me help out a little. This is from the In Box blog on Sept. 13:

    “Mitt Romney has landed himself squarely in the middle of a complex, fast-moving foreign policy nightmare that is still unfolding: the explosion of anger in the Middle East over an anti-Muslim propaganda film made in the US.”
    http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2012/09/13/romney-and-libya/

    Or how about this from the In Box on Sept. 12:

    “In fact, the one thing the Islamic world needs, more than anything else, is the freedom to debate publicly and freely about its strengths, its weaknesses, and its future.”
    http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2012/09/12/yes-free-speech-trumps-religious-sensitivity/
    Here is a timeline written a week after the incident:

    “While the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has dominated headlines for more than a week, the facts of what actually happened during the Sept. 11 assault are still far from settled. A myriad of questions remain such as the identity of the attackers, the degree to which the assault was pre-planned and why security at the consulate was so insufficient…”
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/timeline-benghazi-attacks/57124/

    And what the heck, I might as well quote myself from Sept. 15:

    “In the end I believe we will find that the attack on the Libyan embassy compound had essentially nothing to do with the stupid video in question just as our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.”

  8. JDM says:

    Obama sure has a funny way of dealing with terrorist attacks.

    Do nothing.

  9. Arlan says:

    JDM – not as “funny” as GW Bush’s way of dealing with them: invade an unrelatd country that will end up killing way more Americans than the terrorist attack itself.

  10. Larry says:

    I can only speak for myself. I don’t see Libya/Benghazi as a political attack strategy; that’s an offensive accusation. I see it as murder by terrorists that:

    1. Might have been prevented if requests for additional security had been granted.
    2. Was mis-labled by the government as a culturally motivated protest.
    3. Spawned bogus and craven apologies from the government.
    4. Was later revealed to be a premeditated terrorist attack.
    5. The government is not being honest about.

    The President has some explaining to do. After all, he took responsibility.

  11. Kathy says:

    Dave, I am a mom and the queen of multi tasking.

    Believe me, you don’t head the other way when an emergency is taking place.

  12. Kathy says:

    People who are in powerful positions are either prideful or humbled by the power.

    President Obama has always struck me as being prideful. He has a difficult time admitting his faults unless backed into a corner. That is why we are seeing acknowledgement “after the fact”. Only recently has he admitted full responsibility. That should have come out on day 1.

    He jumped the gun identifying the video as the cause. A little premature, wouldn’t you say? To me, that is a prideful man who, with the election weeks away, is scrambling to show his ability and leadership. He failed. And he knows it.

    Yes, men makes mistakes. I get that. Forgiven. But that doesn’t mean we have to elect Obama for another 4 years.

  13. dbw says:

    There was a focus group of undecided voters in Columbus after the second debate. One gentleman commented that he felt Romney was being disrespectful of the role of commander in chief. Another commented that he didn’t blame the President for Benghazi anymore than he blamed President Bush for the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps we have something to learn from others here. Finally, I read about a foreign incident that occurred during the final week of the 2004 campaign. Instead of turning it into a political football Sen. Kerry condemned the event, without blaming President Bush. Both classy and responsible.

  14. Kathy says:

    dbw, Obama isn’t being blamed for the Benghazi attacks. He is being blamed for how he handled it.

    I realize both sides can be nit picking and I am sure there are plenty of Republicans who are running with this.

    But there are also many of us who simply see a lack of leadership with Obama in his handling of this. We have eyes. We have lived long enough to have seen what leadership looks like in an emergency.

    President Obama, like any of us would, is toting his success of ending the Iraq war, getting Osama bin Laden, and in the process of ending it in Afghanistan. Hmm. Interesting how we can inherit the bad stuff from Bush but not the good stuff. Was the Bush administration gaining success in these 3 situations and handed the baton to Obama and his administration? Or does Bush just get blamed for everything that Obama couldn’t successfully accomplish?

    It’s not classy to be neutral. It’s also not classy to be a nit picker. It is classy to be honest.

  15. Larry says:

    dbw: were they “undecided” like the ringers at Hofstra the other night? What a joke. Some in the audience AND the “moderater” sounded like Obama campaign workers.

  16. Kathy says:

    This pretty much says it all. Not sure whether to laugh or cry!

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/vdnY8r7_fLw?rel=0

  17. PNElba says:

    Yeah it says it all, including the lie about the 16,000 IRS agents.

  18. PNElba says:

    Wouldn’t it be awesome to have presidential debates with teams of fact-checkers involved?

Leave a Reply