Megyn Kelly: Words Are Their Own Opposites, Obama Double-Plus-Ungood

  depends what the definition of 'of' is


Aw, this is kind of sad. Megyn Kelly is now trying to explain Romney’s dismal debate performance by positing that words can mean their opposites, but only in reference to Benghazi, and especially when Obama says it. We begin our video with some white guy saying that there was a “military-like strike” in Benghazi, which was clear on “Day 1,” but what was confusing everyone was the relationship between the offensive video and “these protests.” Then he says that “given that there were protests going on in other cities because of this protest at the very same time” it was reasonable to assume that this military-like strike was part of the same wave of protests. BUT THEN Megyn weighs in with this philosophical head-scratcher: “declaring something an act of terror doesn’t mean you’re declaring it a terrorist attack.”

See, she continues, any act that is going to kill an ambassador “in this fashion” is going to be described as an “act of terror,” but that DOESN’T MEAN that it’s a terrorist attack! This is a fascinating development! How do we then explain Romney’s interest in saying that Obama did NOT call it an “act of terror,” and concluding that for this reason, Obama sucks and should not be re-elected? No word on that yet, but surely Megyn Kelly will figure out a way to either ignore the debate transcripts, or make it ok when Romney calls the Benghazi attack an “act of terror.”

[Media Matters]

Related

 
Related video

About the author

Kris E. Benson writes about politics for Wonkette and is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy. This will come in handy for when they finally open that philosophy factory in the next town over. @Kris_E_Benson

View all articles by Kris E. Benson

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

174 comments

          1. Mumbletypeg

            That's exactly the voice I was hearing, but went with the lostness she epitomizes.
            (I never cared for Dr. Smith's character anyway. They both can go be flighty and exasperating in hell, together.)

          2. actor212

            Oh, he made that show, tho!

            Think about the dynamic without him: whiny little brat, adolescent teen pining for her sister's boyfriend, older slut….er, sister…distracting the guardian, and two abusive parents who dragged the entire fucking family on a trek through the most dangerous realm of existence known to man.

            Smith ties the whole thing together by underscoring the underlying self-indulgence and preening arrogance of the entire cast! Including Robot!

    1. rickmaci

      I so want to answer but I have sworn off blonde jokes since I watched Gov. Granholm's speech at the convention.

      OK, make it "FauxNews blonde". When she uncrosses her legs?

    2. wolvenwood13

      I really don't like these idiotic blonde jokes. I'm a blonde who is intelligent and have been thought of as dumb all my life. Just because I'm blonde doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Although I may be an idiot for other reasons, but being born blonde isn't one of them. The blonde jokes have to go. YOu don't tell racist jokes do you?

      1. BoatOfVelociraptors

        Given that its's a zen joke with a bottle blonde 'do…The satire was pointed at the contortions fox “journalists” have to go through to do their job. She has to dye her hair blonde, stay skinny, and say that words mean the opposite of what they do, under a moniker of “fair and balanced”.Thanks

  1. snowpointsecret

    Soon she'll just end up making all the craziness take half the time. Example: Obama didn't say it was a terrorist attack because he was pandering to women.

  2. Gratuitous World

    Hold on wonkette. This is the same logic that allows Newscorp to call it Fox "News." because it's not. but it can be described as such. though it isn't. yet it has been declared.

    1. FakaktaSouth

      the FUCKING ARGUMENT was that Obama DID NOT SAY the terrorism word for 14 days. PERIOD. BUT HE DID. SO, fuck her, fuck fox "news" (always) and fuck this trying to run around and make something different out of the fact that that dick got HIS ASS KICKED AND TRIED TO SAY ANOTHER LIE AND GOT COLD BUSTED FOR IT.

      SORRY I am not yelling at you, just, you know, yelling.

  3. MonkeyHamlet

    Calling Megyn Kelly a shit-for-brains does not necessarily mean that she has shit in her brain. But she does.

  4. OneDollarJuana

    Just because I might say Ms. Kelly looks fukkin' good doesn't mean she's a good fu…

    What?

    1. FNMA

      I don't know. Crazy women are always the most fun. Right up until they stop being fun. Then, it's just scary.

    2. Mapmonger

      No no, that's no contradiction. Someone can be great looking and end up a positively Lovecraftian lay.

      1. Incitefully_Joe

        Wait? Lovecraftian in the bad way, or the good? Because I've definitely had a few evenings' entertainments that have involved non-euclidian spaces and left me gibbering incoherently, and I ain't complainin'.

        Or wait, do you mean Lovecraftian in the sense that sometimes you end up sleeping with a racist from the 1920's? Because in that case, I fear I must question your entire premise.

  5. Weenus299

    I don't know. Either way it's ninnies fighting over wordery to describe something that got fucked up and looked more like an organized hit than it was some claptrap over a shitty video. The semantics of "war on terrorism" versus "war on terror" can be argued, but I don't know.
    I've lost humor today. Sorry.

  6. cousinitt

    I think we can all agree it's the English language that has been subjected to an attack of terrorism by one Omegyn bin-Kelly.

  7. freakishlywrong

    "It depends of what the meaning of the word exploiting a tragedy for political gain means, Megyn".

  8. Crank_Tango

    Whatever happened to the narrative that we supported the terrorists because they didn't get enough blue ribbons growing up, where did that one go?

  9. midnighttoker69

    I love how FOX spends all this time focusing everybody's attention on the one moment from the debate that Mitt would most likely rather people would forget.

  10. freakishlywrong

    And fuck, November 6, (November 8, if you're Hispanic and live in AZ), CANNOT come soon enough.

  11. hagajim

    Megyn Megyn Megyn….dese fuckin' peeple are just astonishing! I wonder if Faux has morning staff meetings to try and come up with the bullshit of the day.

  12. elviouslyqueer

    I refuse to watch any more of this shrieking bimbo unless it's footage of her fellating Ann Coulter.

    1. midnighttoker69

      Just because Ann Coulter has a dick, that doesn't mean that Megyn will suck it … oh, wait, yes it does, in fact, it explains how that talentless, brainless twat worked her way up to the job she has. She must be the Nancy (Reagan) Davis of FOX News.

    2. lulzmonger

      LOL, it's funny, because it's common knowledge a persistant rumor that all the FOX Flagship Station Fembots must orally service Murdoch to his complete satisfaction before he'll let them be one of his on-air stenographers.

  13. Goonemeritus

    That’s an awesome display of Socratic Logic right there. And they say watching a logic pretzel being made is disturbing.

  14. BlueStateLibel

    No snark: Honestly, I don't see where they think they're going with this. This is nothing like the 1980's Iran Hostage situation; you'd think someone would have some smarts about it. But keep plugging away with it, by all means.

    1. Goonemeritus

      They have been taking the approach of throwing everything at the wall and hoping for at least some of it to stick. For much of that time the fact that there isn’t a throw-able object or even a wall hasn’t stopped them .

    1. Gleem McShineys

      It does! *

      *If you Megynspeak it around, so that it is her head, filled with air, at the end.

  15. Lascauxcaveman

    Hello Megyn? Can you help me out with the definition of the phrase "stupid twat"?

    Oh! I guess you already have.

  16. OneYieldRegular

    God these people are indecent. How Megyn Kelly can get to the end of a day with even a shred of self-respect remaining is beyond me.

    1. mrblifil

      You're talking about a woman who probably had to give Jabba the Hut a roofie, under the guise of "acheiving a career goal." She's probably fucking insane to begin with, however high functioning she may seem.

  17. gingerland62

    I get it. Calling your infonews channel fair and balanced does not mean that the commentary is actually based in fact and is unbiased.

  18. mavenmaven

    That new "talking point" about terrorist act vs act of terror is all over the place. You can be certain that Romney will try to use it in the third debate.

    1. One_who_wanders

      If he does the Prez ought to raise one eyebrow and say "Go on!" and let Mitt hoist that petard!

    2. Negropolis

      Yeah, but use what? Honestly, what is the issue here?

      They seem to realize just like everyone else that something horrible happened, and it happened under Obama, but are totally at a lost how to connect it, bless their hearts.

      Cynically exploiting international tragedies is hard, y'all!

  19. actor212

    “declaring something an act of terror doesn’t mean you’re declaring it a terrorist attack.”

    Don't worry, Megy's, no one is accusing you of an errorist attack…

  20. noodlesalad

    This makes sense. For example, I think Megyn is fucking awful, but I don't think she would be an awful fucking.

    1. AngryBlakGuy

      …listen, I am about as Lib as they come! But if ANY, ANY, ANY, ANY of the fox news chicks come knocking on my door after a hard nights drinking; you better believe that they would be walking with a limp the next day!!!

        1. AngryBlakGuy

          ….what I am thinking about would involve a lead pipe, however it wouldn't be hitting their "knees" if you know what I mean!

  21. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    So, when Romney said that Obama didn't call it an act of terror, he actually meant that Obama called it a terrorist act? No wonder conservatives are so upset. Clearly Candy Crowly doesn't understand how English works. Guess she better self deport.

  22. Estproph

    “declaring something an act of terror doesn’t mean you’re declaring it a terrorist attack.” literally untrue

    Unclear understanding of English language

    Believes that words mean their definitional opposite

    Dark roots in hair

    2/10 WOULD NOT BANG

  23. VicariousMe

    Actually, she is right. An act of terror comes from a government (see La Terreur, French Revolution). A terrorist act comes from extremist groups.

    1. James Michael Curley

      No. An "act of terror" is a compound noun.
      A "terrorist act" is a noun with an adjective.

      1. VicariousMe

        I will admit that the first comment was said in jest, for myself, as I rarely comment and people normally don't pay attention to what I say. However, it is important to note that terror and terrorism aren't equivalent. Terror is terrifying, terrorism is designed to be terrifying and seeks maximum exposure to do so with the media or government acting as a magnifier.

        Had President Obama said an act of terrorism, this line of attack from the right would have been moot – not that it makes much sense to start with. "No acts of terror" seemed more an appropriate qualifier to me when you don't know all the details. It certainly is better than calling it terrorism and give the terrorists exactly what they want. Even knowing all the details, passing it off as part of an ongoing unrest and a spontaneous act was a clever way to deflect the intended terror. And it worked. People were shocked ang got reasonably angry at the stupidity of it all. Even if it happened on 9/11, people weren't scared.

        Mr Romney clearly blew this one by insisting his opponent hadn't said "act of terror" which effectively made him look like a fool but I suspect the Obama administration had its reason to not talk about terrorism immediately. I also suspect this had nothing to do with the crazy conspiracies coming from some on the right but everything to do with separating terror from terrorism.

        And this is the longest comment I've ever typed on Wonkette in the six years and two usernames – lost credentials – I've been lurking here because you all are so much funnier than I could ever be. Which I guess I just proved.

        1. James Michael Curley

          I too do not suspect that the fine distinction between an act of terror and an act of terrorism was at the basis of Romney stepping into it during the debate. That spin has already been spun by those who are in terror that the electorate would realize Romney often knows not of which he speaks. Yet with their blind they do not yet feel terrorized by the declining credibility attributed to them. Witness Roger Ailes getting four more years to run the Fox News Group.Yet as Obama famously said in another context, “Words have meaning.” Using the term and “act of terrorism” has a consequence which the White House studiously and critically avoided. After all the years and all the talk of ‘terrorism’ from as early as the bombing of the USS Cole and the US Embassies in Africa the next issue has become “An act of terrorism by whom?” Given all that could be known from what has been released as events in the time line, when it was an important part of American Foreign Policy to make a strong statement about the event, there was no room to leave open that door and, absent an al Quida like you tube post, no reasonable way to know which of several of the fragmenting oppositions to Quadfi was responsible. Obama’s statement clearly signaled we are prepared to respond without tipping off the problem that we were not ready to identify to whom we will respond. At present the Obama administration has achieved the objective in Libya the Bush administration sought in Iraq and Afghanistan without putting any boots on the ground and without getting stuck supporting a corrupt, murderous successor as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan.As I have said before, In Iraq and Afghanistan Bush was playing tic-tac-toe with a blunt crayon. In Libya Obama was playing chess.

  24. fatbob54

    It's really very simple people: an act of terror is a performance that simulates terror in such a way that it appears to be terror while a terrorist act is a terrorist who puts on a performance.

    Think of it this way: The Romney no doubt can do "The Aristocrats" act, but that does not mean they are Aristocrats.

  25. AngryBlakGuy

    ..so what she is saying is, when I told my ex that I was screwing her room mate in college it meant that she should have taken it as me "tutoring" her room mate?! Wow, I sure tutored a lot of chicks(I still got BINDERS!!)!!!!!

  26. mrblifil

    She needs a bitchslap, which is actually a rhetorical device, it's not the same as slapping a bitch!

    Sorry, I meant to say she needs someone to visit her and assist her with her voter registration process, if necessary!

  27. SayItWithWookies

    Well, words do mean their own opposites — for instance, both of the following sentences are true:

    1. To be fair to Megyn, this is the same bullshit line that the Romney campaign and the FOX commentariat has been pursuing since they first heard the Libyan consulate had been attacked.

    2. To be unfair to Megyn, this is the same bullshit line that the Romney campaign and the FOX commentariat has been pursuing since they first heard the Libyan consulate had been attacked.

    QED.

    1. AngryBlakGuy

      …wow, that is a little confusing(I'm Drunk). Cant we just call "Megyn" a BITCH, for spelling her name in a away that is not commonl? I swear to god that is a porn spelling!!!!

    1. UW8316154

      Water, fire, air and dirt
      Fucking magnets, how do they work?
      And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
      Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.

    2. Gleem McShineys

      A settlement attorney working for Andrea Mackris?

      It also gets more confusing, when both turned into a big pile of money.

    1. FNMA

      I don't know. If this is the only evidence of it, they still appear to be looking for it. Maybe it's under the couch cushions…

  28. coolhandnuke

    There's a certain opposing Kierkegaardian magnetism to Megyn–you fucking hate her but you want to hate fuck her.

  29. fawkedifiknow

    Obama would show a little leadership if he just learned how to know beforehand what exact words the right wingnuts want him to say, 3 weeks after he's already said the exact same thing, but in other words.

    Does that make sense? Because if it does, you're a dumbfuck just like them.

  30. barto

    Well, Kris, see here, there's yer legitimate acts of terror and your illegitimate acts of terror, doncha know? I'm always havin' to splain this to the womenfolk, god bless 'em.

  31. keinsignal

    Well, sure, calling an "attack" an "act" of "terror" doesn't mean you're saying it was a "terrorist attack". You could for example be saying that it was a terrorist prank gone too far, or even a terrorist act of kindness gone horribly awry.

  32. DahBoner

    words can actually mean the opposite

    True

    Sometimes when women say something "wrong" and a guy repeats it back to her, word-for-word, it's a woman's right and peragative to change her mind about the meaning of "words" and declare "but I meant the opposite".

    But good gawd, dudes generally don't do this..

  33. BoroPrimorac

    What's up with dude's muffin top haircut? You're not 'possed to let your mom pick your hairstyle at that age.

  34. Fox n Fiends

    "Credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth." – Adolph Hitler

  35. BoroPrimorac

    Translation: Our case against the Obama administration, vis a vis Benghazi, is that he failed to call it an act of terror. And because, as Liz Cheney has been telling us for the past three years, calling any attack against the United States an act of terror is a deterrent against future attacks, the Obama administration was negligent and it put Americans in harm's way.

  36. skmind

    She's right, please stop picking on her

    Act of terror: Misguided Christian ex-military dude with "issues" commits an error of judgment and guns down bearded men in a Sikh temple

    Terrorist act: Candy Crowley fact-checking Mitt in a debate like John Wilkes Booth before he pops one in Abe. (Sorry, that did not come out right, but words mean the same as their opposite, or something).

  37. Callyson

    “declaring something an act of terror doesn’t mean you’re declaring it a terrorist attack.”

    For example, the existence of FOX News is an act of terror, but not quite a terrorist attack…

  38. Gleem McShineys

    I personally believe that American Presidents are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh. . . people out there in our nation don't have terror and, uh, I believe that our, uh, consulates like such as in Benghazi and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our acts of terror over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help Mitt Romney and should help the Iraq and the Libya countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children.

    FUCK, THIS ACTUALLY MAKES MORE SENSE THAN MEGYN'S STATEMENT

  39. Caelan Aegana

    That look she's got in that screencap is the exact same look my dogs give me when I tell them that they can't have my food: equal parts confusion, disbelief and annoyance.

    It looks like she can't fathom the little "play" symbol.

    I think I'd rather just look at that and not watch the clip.

  40. grace_nearing

    Eh, what can you say about a news organization that has persisted for over a decade in using the term "homicide bomber" instead of the standard "suicide bomber" because it fears the word "suicide" might engender sympathy or admiration.

  41. Grokenstein

    People, I am SO sorry.
    Megyn's all my fault.
    I didn't flush that ONE time, and when I came back it had escaped and now it's on FOXNews.

  42. Snarkoluffagus

    My first comment Yeah!!! Megyn Kelly is a twatwaffle if i ever saw one!!!! Also she makes great word salad!! YEAHHH

  43. Negropolis

    The most crazy thing about this is that if they wanted to make an issue of anything, you'd think they'd have gotten beyond the semantics issues a long time ago. I can think of a number of angles from which they could attack this issue, politically, in very deceptive but effective ways, and they've TOTALLY missed them. I mean, the Republican House has offered them on a platter ways in which to attack this issue and they haven't taken any. I mean, there was this dude in Tripoli who has been all over the news claiming how he warned everybody (even though he didn't know two flying fucks what was happening in Benghazi) just waiting to be put into a Romney commercial and they are still quibbling about the words the administration used.

    Fuck 'em.

  44. RufusTFirefly

    So is Megyn cool with Obama declaring a Rmoney statement "an act of lying" because it doesn't mean he was calling it "a lie?"

    Wingnut logic is like 9 dimensional chess. I just don't get it.

  45. cousinitt

    I still don't get why this is such a big story except that the GOP has ginned up the media to make it such.
    Libya is a dangerous place.
    Check.

    The Republican controlled Congress refused to fund the State Department fully.
    Check.
    Am I missing something here? Maybe we are to live in a world of perfect knowledge and safety. Until W is indicted by the World Court for crimes against humanity, all this other chatter is just so much fallout from the more egregious offenses.

    And oh yes, Megyn is not a stupid blonde. She lives amongst the most reprehensibly amoral human beings to live on Earth–those who for whatever reason, choose to lie, obfuscate, and make shit up simply to advance one's own ego or the advancement of a corrupt and amoral ideology. That she may also be in the game for money is a given. May she rot in hell.

  46. Biel_ze_Bubba

    What I want to know is, who gives a fuck what Obama called it? Seriously, what difference does it make? After they investigate, and put a Hellfire missile up the ass of whoever was responsible, who called it what, and when, will be even more irrelevant than it is now … which is already pretty damned irrelevant.

Comments are closed.