Fact-checking Candy Crowley's 'act of terror' fact-check
The debate moderator comes under fire for siding with Obama in a key moment of the second presidential debate. Was she right?

Mitt Romney's supporters are furious at CNN's Candy Crowley for fact-checking the GOP nominee on the fly in Tuesday's debate, telling him that he was wrong to say that President Obama hadn't referred to the deadly Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate as an act of "terror" until 14 days after it happened. Obama said he referred to the attack, which killed Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, as an "act of terror" on Sept. 12 in a speech in the White House Rose Garden. Romney pounced, thinking he had caught Obama in a lie, and Crowley interjected, saying, "He did call it an act of terror." She added that Romney was right to say that the Obama administration took two weeks to abandon the suggestion that the attack was related to protests over an anti-Islam video, but the exchange clearly threw off Romney. (See the video below.) His supporters argue that Crowley disgraced herself, both by showing a pro-Obama bias and by mischaracterizing a statement in which Obama was referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — not Benghazi. Was Crowley on the mark, or is this a case where the fact-checking doesn't stand up under fact-checking?
Crowley blew it: The CNN journalist was just plain wrong, says Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post. Obama said during the speech that "no acts of terror" will shake our resolve, but he didn't mention Benghazi leading up to that statement. He was referring to "9/11/01 and other jihadist attacks." Obama was wrong, and Crowley "egregiously sided" with him instead of remaining impartial.
"Obama still wrong on Libya; Crowley blows it"
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Huh? Romney messed up and Crowley caught him: Conservatives are upset because their guy got slammed, says James Poniewozik at TIME, but disputing Crowley's fact-check is a losing game. Obama directly spoke of the dead in Benghazi immediately after his line about "acts of terror." Romney got caught because there was a knowledgeable journalist there to keep him honest. Kudos to Crowley.
"Debate Watch: The fact-check heard round the world"
Obama did call it an act of terror, but not when Crowley said: Romney's supporters are right about one thing, says Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy. In the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama really "did not explicitly refer to the Benghazi attack as an 'act of terror,' though he did use those words." He did, however, specifically call the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" on a campaign stop the very next day. Regardless, Romney's claim that Obama took 14 days to call Benghazi terrorism is wrong.
"Obama did call Benghazi attack an 'act of terror' — in Colorado"
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Take a look at the exchange for yourself:
And take a look at Obama's Rose Garden remarks, too:
Read more political coverage at The Week's 2012 Election Center.
-
Greenpeace, Energy Transfer and the demise of environmental activism
The Explainer Court order forcing Greenpeace to pay $660m over pipeline protests will have 'chilling' impact on free speech, campaigners warn
By The Week UK Published
-
The UK's best spa towns
The Week Recommends From Bath to Buxton, these historic towns are perfect for a relaxing break
By The Week UK Published
-
Crossword: March 25, 2025
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published