Jake Tapper has a very good, and aptly titled, piece on some Republicans’ criticism of Obama over the attacks in Libya. It points out that, as mistermix said, the embassy’s statement came out before the violence began, and it ends by calling a lie a lie.
Romney wasn’t the only one — Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tweeted ”Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”
The evidence that the president “sympathizes with attackers in Egypt” was not immediately apparent, likely because it does not in any way exist.
Kudos to Tapper for spelling it out carefully…why isn’t this done more often? Why can’t an article just say that someone’s claims are not true in any way?