Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Right; Made Honorary NFL Replacement Ref

At last night’s debate, moderator Candy Crowley went into full “fact check” mode to help out President Obama out of a jam during questioning about the Benghazi attack:

In late September Crowley herself said the administration didn’t claim it was a terrorist attack for 17 days. Didn’t Crowley remember Obama doing just that (she claims) the day after? Or was she helpfully provided with that talking point reminder before the debate?

Oh, and here’s the good part. After her daring mid-debate “fact check smackdown” on Romney while some of the audience erupted in applause (a crowd of “undecided” voters?), Crowley admitted Romney was right:

Mediaite adds this about Crowley: “She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his ‘thrust’ was correct.”

“Instinct” is just another word for “bias” I assume.

In debate number three next week, to avoid parsing over the meaning of Obama’s words the day after Benghazi, here’s the question Romney should hammer home that won’t leave Obama (or the moderator for that matter) any wiggle room: “If you (Obama) said it was an act of terror the day after the attack, why were your Press Secretary and the US ambassador to the UN several days later still blaming it on spontaneous anger over a video? Didn’t they believe you?”

Even Crowley couldn’t bail Obama out of that one… not that she wouldn’t try.

Update: From a Jay Carney press gaggle on September 20, nine days after the attack and eight days after we’re supposed to believe President Obama proclaimed the Benghazi attack to be a planned terrorist event:

Q. So just to clarify, does the President see that it was an attack on 9/11, a terrorist attack on 9/11? Is that the administration or the President’s view?

MR. CARNEY: The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. So we use the same calendar at the White House that you do, and, yes, he sees it. I will simply point you to the testimony of Mr. Olsen, in which he said, based on the information that they have now — and this is an ongoing investigation — their judgment is that it was an opportunistic attack in which elements including, possibly, elements of al Qaeda in the Maghreb, participated.

Does that scream “definitely a planned terrorist attack” to you?