We had our debate last night, and as was expected, Crowley made her partisan views and bias a significant factor in the debate: if you deny this obvious fact, you suffer from willful ignorance or you are so lost in your bias your sanity might be in question.
Crowley let it be known, before the debate, she planned to inject her influence into the debate; after all, she has a superior intellect and is a member of the elite cadre of media engaged in the reelection of Obama. How could anyone expect or ask that she be a neutral moderator, with such superior talent, she needs to be an active participant and personality within the debate. Who knew the debate, between men vying for the most powerful position in the world, required the participation of an obvious shill for Obama to clap for Obama and allow him extra time to make crucial points because they are “important.”
When the “approved questions by undecided voters, who show up decided, and then ask questions like “how are you different from Bush” the debate has ceased to be a debate and has become a Liberal media event. Forget the fact that Michelle Obama is allowed to break the rules and lead the questioners and Crowley in applause, the debate has lost its validity. The moderators have reduced the debates from important historical meetings that allow the public to view the candidates under stress competing against each other, to the level of another Liberal hosted talk show on the alphabet networks. Allowing Obama to interrupt with impunity and talk over Romney was only one of many examples of the debate taking on the appearance of a Liberal media event; this ruins the spirit of a legitimate debate. We deserve better.
The question of President Obama’s reluctance to use the word terror in reference to Islamic Fundamentalists is well known and has brought into question the dubious nature of his loyalties. In the Rose Garden speech on September 12, 20120, Obama used the word terror once near the conclusion of his speech:
“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.”
To those of us who study the often convoluted and purposely vague speeches of politicians and Obama in particular, such a generic statement regarding terror toward the end of a speech seems to reply to terror in general; but Crowley felt the obligation, as an Obama Bootlicker, to interject herself and correct Romney, based solely on her personal assumption and interpretation of this vague reference to terror. Whether the president meant to apply the term terror to Benghazi will be a matter of conjecture, but at best the president is guilty of being vague and indirect in designating Benghazi an act of terror, if indeed, he meant Benghazi to be considered an act of terror. Yet, Crowley, with her superior intellect, has said, “yes” that is what he was saying, and the Liberal world is commending her for her rudeness and pretension.
A computer with a timer could be used more effectively and without the shameless bias that America is expected to accept as “normal;” unless, the computer is programmed with this same devious propensity of Liberals towards cheating.
If the tables were reversed and the deck was stacked against a Democrat, the hue and cry of unfairness would be unceasing; yet, the hypocrisy to even admit the obvious bias of a moderator helping a debater who wanders off course or needs help with extra time is insignificant.
The debates are nothing more than a spectacle, designed for Romney to be handicapped and to allow Obama a chance to reassert himself in the race. Still the question remains and begs to be asked: if Liberals are content to cheat and be comfortable with the mantle of corruption associated with cheating, where may we assume they draw the line. In other words, if cheating is second nature to the Liberal, how far are they prepared to go in this corruption of cheating. Do they provide Obama with the question crib sheets so that he is more well prepared?
Yes, he showed remarkable improvement from the last debate are we to assume he gained a mastery of these specific topics in a few days, when he sounded like a blithering dolt during the last debate. The Liberals are asking us to believe in their sense of honesty and integrity, but like the drunk whore in church, the hypocrisy is more than obvious as is their tendency to use whatever means necessary to gain the upper hand.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
J. G.and Skooks I’m not covering for anybody–don’t believe Crowley had, or was asked to immediately produce, the Rose Garden speech. That was N.D. 13 Michigan 6.
Now now NanG. Lets say Candy is horizontally challenged.
A copy up her skirt, in her massive bodice perhaps??
JG, I realize my mistake.
However, Liberals ask us to believe that our president in the midst of one of three presidential debates is using a tactic used by people when they can’t argue effectively and there is no way to produce the transcript of the speech, unless, the moderator just happens to have the appropriate back up, out of all the potential documents that might be called into play, and she provides the appropriate backup. It was a bizarre performance by a moderator and debater at the very least. It happened in front of 60 million people and the correction by Crowley was viewed by less than 2% of those people. Thus the debate qualifies as a Democrat media event that Republicans continue to agree to and are led to these events like sheep to an abattoir.
@Nan G:
You know, it’s not even like I care that there was collusion between Obama and Crowley. We knew this going in.
I just cannot believe that two otherwise intelligent people would decry this fact as simple “conspiracy theory” by the right. It’s entirely obvious that it happened. And yet, all we here from the Obama apologists is denials to the contrary.
Find the CNN splitscreen video of that point in the debate. Obama looks directly at Crowley, motions with his hand, and tells her to “Get the transcript”.
The telling thing is that even after all of that, Crowley has to eat crow later on, after the debate has ended, and admit that Romney was “right in the main”. Meaning, Romney’s point about the whole libyan mess is correct.
And what’s that say about Obama? That even with an obvious home-field advantage, he couldn’t “win” on this issue. Why? Because neither him, nor Biden, nor any of his admin staff, can tell the American people the truth about what really happened.
And this is the guy that the Obama apologists want running the country for four more years?
“Get the transcript” was obviously directed at Romney. He apparently hadn’t bothered to read it. If he had done, he wouldn’t have set himself up like he did.
J.G. Now you don’t care. “there was collusion going in.” plz. Was she In Possession of the transcript or not?
SKOOKS Thanks for your continued honesty Semper Fi Marine
@Greg:
Greg, watch the CNN splitscreen video of that exchange. Obama looks directly at Crowley. No one else. And tells her to “Get the transcript”. He also motions with his hand to her as he’s telling her that.
You are off your rocker if you think Obama was telling Romney to get the transcript.
As for Romney setting himself up, we’ll see about that. Romney now has Obama on video stating no less than three times that Obama called the attack a “terrorist act”. And it is clear, to anyone with intellectual honesty anyways, that when the entire Rose Garden speech is read, that Obama referred to the attack as “senseless violence” and only generally discussed “acts of terrorism”. The important part is Obama using the plural when discussing terrorism, Greg. It takes quite a leap in logic to then assume that he is referring directly to the Benghazi attack as an act “of terrorism”.
And, as well, Crowley later on admitted that Romney was correct in his assertion about Obama and his people not calling it an “act of terrorism” until two weeks after the attack happened.
And further, go back to the VP debate. Biden insisted that the intelligence both he and Obama received referred to the attack’s cause as being protests over the film. For up to a week after the attack.
No, Obama never referred to the attack as being an “act of terrorism”, no matter how much you liberal/progressives want to spin it. Instead, what we got was two weeks of lies and muddled statements on what happened, and that muddling is going on right now, as well.
@Tom:
Oh you’ve tried to make a few insults but hey since you want to play innocent sheep, that’s fine but you seem to play more of the ignorant village idiot. Honestly doesn’t bother me one way another how you view yourself in all of this. You’ve tried low blows on retire and tried to insult me with trying to bring in, “aliens” into the discussion while trying to make a comment how certain conservatives are supposedly cartoonish. It’s surprising given your lack of experiences in life showing here but that’s a different matter it seems.
And it is not a sort of tin-foil hat plot by people on the Right Tom when the California was taken out of the unemployment figures on purpose, it isn’t a tin-foil hat plot that the White House administration went out of their way to avoid declaring Libya attack a terror attack to the media for over 2 weeks after the event with the President simply stating the dead as mere, “Bumps in the road to peace.”
If you can’t live in reality of what is happening and the fact that Leftists have been given their 4 years of power and got nowhere but a world in flames and an economy on the verge of a second collapse well, that’s for you and here’s a tin foil hat. I made it especially for you.
J.G. The clock is ticking on the lie that on the night of the 2nd Prez. debate Candy Crowley was in possession of The Rose Garden transcript. 2 days and tick tick.
@Richard Wheeler:
I said that I don’t care that it happened, Rich. It was bound to happen, given previous recent debates between GOP and Democratic party candidates.
What I do care about is someone insisting that any time Obama is questioned about anything, they are immediately grouped with the “truther” movement by some here. Like they are wild conspiracy theorists. Sometimes, Rich, where there is smoke, there is, indeed, a fire.
Personally I can’t believe there is so much discussion on what was possibly one of the worst debates ever. Two minutes to respond… which neither of them kept to… basically gives them the opportunity to pass on the base talking points from their campaign stump speeches. And that’s exactly what they did. Learned nothing new from either… same ol’, same ol’. The commission could have saved money and just back to back edited lines from their speeches around the country, and put it up on YouTube.
Basically, Romney held his own, and didn’t lose any of his devotees. He could only lose by being overtly tromped, as Obama was in debate #1. Obama devotees who were disappointed from the first debate, felt redeemed. Zero sum outcome, IMHO. Debate #3 coming up. Hopefully it’s not another two minutes of talking points opportunity again.
But “transcript’gate”… LOL OMG. That’s too funny. Some see it as a conspiracy. Others think it was directed at Romney… or Crowley. You know how I took that moment, below paraphrased?
Romney: no you didn’t
Obama: yes I did
Romney: no you didn’t
Obama: yes I did
Romney: no you didn’t
Obama: oh yes I did.. get the transcript
Why anyone would assume that means Crowley is sitting there with a transcript is beyond me. I took it as one guy’s way to end the childish “no you didn’t, yes I did” argument. I don’t think Obama expected anyone to actually do it on the spot (altho that’s easily possible). Just a way for Obama to end the absurd bickering by saying, in effect, “I can prove it, where’s the transcript”.
And he could.
As one mentioned here, Crowley was aware of what was said in the Rose Garden. I also remember Obama going on about on “acts of terror”…. despite what it was in relationship to. The point was, he was talking about Benghazi and attacks, and he wasn’t going to let that go without repercussions. I doubt anyhere here can argue that he’s not out Cowboy’ed Bush when it comes to bombarding Pakistan and other Muslim nations with drones, and invaded Pakistani territory to take out UBL.
Romney approached the incident in the wrong way, and got caught by the nature of his phrasing. But it was no conspiracy.
Crowley has producers in her earpiece. Behind that producer are people with access to computers who could easily pull up a transcript in moments, if needed. Frankly, I thought Crowley let the “no you didn’t, yes I did” crap go on too long anyway. Watching two grown men behave like 5 year old battling siblings was a low point in the campaign for me. Heavens… this is the cream of the crop for leader of the free world?
I saw no evidence of Crowley being on one candidate’s side or another for the duration. Both candidates were rude, and refused to honor the time allotment. Both argued with her when she tried to move on. Hey, *I* wanted them to move on because neither were saying anything…. what a joke of a debate. But I don’t see the moderator/conspiracy about the transcript at all.
What Romney meant was that the WH and intel agencies knew within hours that the attack was planned. What Romney doesn’t admit to… or know… was that the same intel said that Ansar al-Sharia only decided to go ahead with their planned attack that day when they saw the Cairo protests over the idiotic film.
So it was a half truth by the WH… they seized on the film/Cairo, and decided not to mention the intel about the attack also being planned. It was Rice who embarrassed herself later by saying the protests were at the consulate in Benghazi, which actually didn’t take place until days later in front of the Tibesty Hotel – not the consulate.
The WH is at fault for constructing talking points to the nation about the attack, and cherry picking the intel for the content. Not an outright lie, since the WH didn’t say that the protests were in front of the consulate in the Rose Garden. But definitely worthy of a Pinocchio and a half or so.
Perhaps there is a certain amount of legitimacy in the WH not wanting to declare it a planned attack publicly without more corroborative evidence. But then if that applied to the planned attack part of the intel, it should have equally applied to the Cairo protest part of the intel. So nope… can’t let them off there either.
It was a “meaning of “is”… is” moment that Romney lost because of his choice of attack. And that’s because he should have kept it simple and asked why the WH didn’t tell the nation it was a planned attack, when they had intel that supported that…. skipping the “act of terror” gotcha trap.
Yup.
Now I wonder if Dick Durbin (DEMOCRAT Ill) will be grouped in with the conspiracy theorists?
Durbin is one of those in office when ObamaCare was passed who did not read it all.
He now is learning that hundreds of thousands of workers will be cut to part time as an unintended (but easily foreseen) consequence of the law so that their employers can avoid paying for their health insurance.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/democrat-sen-durbin-cuts-to-workers-hours-a-bad-result-of-obamacare-video/
How many of us who read that horrid piece of legislation saw that coming?
A bunch of us!
Obama kept mum.
Nancy P. kept mum.
Now it is hitting the fan.
Woe to DEMS who point out the obvious!
@Richard Wheeler:
What lie, Rich?
Crowley herself admitted after the debate to “boning” up on Libya pre-debate, including having material present at the debate. Is it such a stretch to assume, then, that she also had in her possession the transcript from the speech?
It’s starting to seem strange that the “Get the transcript” comment would be getting so much attention. People may begin babbling about duplicate keys and geometric logic at any moment.
Comment #111. Awesome.
That is all.
@MataHarley:
I never said it was a conspiracy, Mata. What I did say was in response to Tom deeming anyone who thought there was collusion between Obama and Crowley to be “conspiracy theorists”.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder. Watching the CNN splitscreen video, Obama definitely looks directly at Crowley and tells her to “Get the transcript”. You don’t get that same idea from watching a non-splitscreen video, such as the ABC video on youtube of that exchange.
Now, even if it is wrong to believe Crowley had the transcript (i believe she did), there are several problems within that exchange that show a clear favoritism towards Obama.
-One, Obama looked directly at her and requested the transcript, like he expected her to do so.
-Two, Crowley injected herself into the debate by saying yes, Obama did call it an “act of terrorism”.
-Three, although she also stated agreement, partially, with Romney’s assertion, the crowd cheers drowned out that part, and she moved quickly on to the next question.
Now, anyone with half a brain knows there will be partiality shown by the moderators in these debates. And, at the same time, accepts that as part of the “field of battle” the candidates fight on. It’s expected, in other words. That’s why I told Rich that I don’t care that it happened.
But to sit there and deny that the possibility of collusion was present between Obama and the moderator, especially given that little exchange, and the video evidence supporting it, is crazy.
In the long run, Romney will get further mileage out of that exchange than Obama will. For the simple fact that Obama only spoke in generalities of “acts of terror” in that speech, and when he spoke in particular about the attack, opted to call it an “act of senseless violence”. Parsing words? Sure. But Obama himself stated, in that debate, that he “means what he says”. And with Crowley admitting after the debate that Romney was “right in the main”, but simply chose the wrong wording, Romney is somewhat vindicated in his comments on the subject.
Couple that with the VP debate, in which Biden stated that the intelligence he and Obama were given implied that the protest over the film was the cause, for up to a week after it, and it means that either Obama, or Biden, was lying about it. Or both. Take your pick.
As for the entire debate, I’d have to agree with you. It was nothing more than interspersed two-minute plus talking points that told us nothing more than what we already knew from them and about them. No one’s mind was really changed, only the bases shored up more. And that was expected as well, being the format that it was.
J.G. I think Mata made it pretty clear in #111 and absolutely concur with Wordsmith’s #115 “awesome” I know it’s damn hard for you to ever admit you’re wrong. I understand.
And therein lies the problem had by all apologists of the Obama/Biden ticket.
One is lying.
Or, the other is lying.
Obama’s appeasement of Islam, his siding with Sharia that no American should denigrate ”the prophet” Mohammad, and that the ”Arab Spring” was anything other than an Islamist take-over of semi-secular Muslim majority countries is the real problem.
Obama has done a few targeted assassinations via drones.
And that has probably done more for inflaming Osama-loving Muslims than the video did.
(The would-be attacker of the NY Fed Reserve Bank cited his love for Osama.)
@Richard Wheeler:
We talked about this before:
It happens with both sides. You see things one way, JG sees things another. It’s like watching the video of Michelle Obama where she says, “how pretty they fold that flag.” or “all this for a damn flag.” Depends on who you ask.
I thought Obama was talking to Romney about the transcript, but if I look at the video going around thinking he was talking to Crowley, it damn sure looks as if he was. And then Michelle breaks out in applause.
So whose right? I really didn’t think it was that big of a deal. Like I said in another post, Obama is between a rock and an election with this. Someone should resign over Benghazi, but if he goes after Hillary with a little over two weeks before the election, Bill will come undone.
@johngalt, my comment was to no one in particular, and merely a round up of everyone’s conceptions and perspectives of both the debate, and “transcript’gate”.
@Aqua, Michelle wasn’t the only one applauding. So was I. We may not have had the same reasons, but I was applauding *anyone* putting a halt to imbecile behavior of these two, and merely deferring the final to the eventual fact checking that we know ensues. These days, all these things have fact checkers, and the fact checkers have fact checkers.
Ergo, most of the voting public still think both sides of politicians lie their butts off, and no one gives a straight up, honest answer. Count me as one of those.
Michelle Obama is 48 now and was over 44 when she said whatever she said.
Had she NEVER seen the military folding a flag before???
I beggars belief!
Aqua No question there should have been better security at the Benghazi Consulate and Admin. is at fault and ultimately responsible as BHO belatedly owned up to.
To suggest the video did not inflame the Cairo embassy demonstration, as well as others, would be disingenuous.
Again, I defer to Mata’s #111 as the most intelligent and logical post.
As I said before, I agree the whole debate quite simply SUCKED.
The Mass. Moderate, scrambling madly and clumsily to the middle,has no coat tails and Dems. will hold The Senate.
Let’s be honest. The only differences between this RINO and Mac is a great head of hair and a non existant military record.
@MataHarley:
Mata,
I agree that overall the debate was lousy with tit-tat back and forth and that it wasn’t flattering to either candidate. I would also agree that Romney put his foot in it by getting suckered into the meaning of “is” is moment on Benghazi and could have gotten much more out of it had he simply stuck to the main point/question.
And I certainly feel the job of moderator should be to collar them when they get out of hand like that. But, I disagree entirely that part of that should involve a moderator getting directly involved in the debate in anyway, or fact checking. I think any point can be debated and certainly the candidates are there to parse words. This should be left to the candidates. Should they need separating..there are ways to do that. There is a time and a place for outside commentary and opinion…AFTER the debate on CNN.
Lastly,..again….in doing so…she actually misstated Romney’s point of fact. (one of the dangers of having a 3rd party doing something like this in a debate). I dont’ think she “meant” to do it. Nor do I think it was a conspiracy. It’s just one of the many reasons a moderator should “not” get involved in that way. (ie., they are just as prone to misspeaking as anyone else). Let the candidates make their own mistakes. God knows there’s enough of that already.
@Richard Wheeler:
Nope. I can admit when I’m wrong quite easily, Rich. Mata’s post was her opinion on what happened during the debate. It wasn’t “the facts”, though it was based on facts of what happened. And I agree with her overall assessment of the debate. Just not on “transcriptgate”, as she termed it.
What I’ve learned here on FA, during Obama’s presidency, is that you (along with others here) cannot admit to being wrong about Obama. Someday, somewhere down the line, it will dawn on you, and the others, that Obama was the worst person to be voted in as President, given the particular time in our nation’s history.
Let’s examine Obama’s actual speech given in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, 2012:
(I will only reprint the sections of the speech that deal with the actual attack)
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. (no description of it being a “terrorist” attack)
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. (still, obama does not label it a “terrorist” attack)
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. (here is an implied reference to the video)But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. (still, no label of “terrorism” placed on brutal acts.
the money quote
and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. yet, the Aug. 2, 2012 memo from AMEMBASSYTRIPOLI to SECSTATE regarding the deteriorating situation on the ground was totally ignored)
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 Cemetary, 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. (still, no calling it a “terrorist” attack)
now comes the ONLY mention of “act[s] of terror”
No acts of terror (plural) will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible (note, “terrible”, not “terrorist”) act.
Nowhere did Obama directly call the attack in Benghazi a “terrorist” attack. He called it an “attack,” an “outrageous and shocking” attack, “senseless violence, brutal acts”,” this” attack and a “terrible act.” An act of terrorism? Nope, he never said this senseless, brutal, outrageous and shocking terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Any attempt to spin the actual words into meaning something other than what was actually said is pure and simple b/s.
It also matters that Candy Crowley thought she should step in and “correct” Governor Romney. Especiall in light of her own interview with David Axelrod on Sept. 30, 2012:
CROWLEY: I am joined by Obama campaignb senior adviser David Axelrod. I want to pick up on what John McCain and I were talking about. There’s a back and forth now about why didn’t this administration —why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn’t pass the smell test, or it’s willful ignorance to think that they didn’t know before this what was going on. Your reaction?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. (well, no, he really didn’t as I have shown above) But when you’re the responsible party, when you’re the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was — this is being throughly investigated.
CROWLEY: But first it was, like, not planned.
AXELROD: We need to bring to justice—
CROWLEY: First they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.
AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that was given to us. What we don’t need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.
CROWLEY: But isn’t that what happened?
AXELROD: And you know, Governor Romney leaped out on this Libya issue on the first day, and was terribly mistaken about what he said. (don’t look over here, look over there) That is not what you want in a president of the United States. (Axelrod is clearly politicizing the Benghazi issue here) As for Senator McCainb, for whom I have great respect, he has disapproved of our approach to Libya from the beginning, including the strategy that brought Gadhafi to justice.
CROWLEY: Butr this hs to do not with the approach to Libya but with the murder of four Americans in Libya. And didn’t the administration shoot first? Didn’t they come out and say, listen, as far as we can tell, this wasn’t preplanned, this was just a part of —
Remember, this was on Sunday, September 30th, the week after Susan Rice had hit the talk shows and said the Benghazi attack was due to the [non-existant] protest against the video, and that was fact. This was after Obama and Hillary Clinton created a commercial to be aired in ME nations that disavowed the video. This was after Jay Carney had stated, time after time, that the [non-existant] protest and subsequent attack was due to the video.
Now, Tom, Greg and the rest of the Obama Apologetic Club can try to spin this anyway they want, but they can only do it by ignoring Obama’s actual words, by ignoring Crowley’s questioning of Axelrod, and by ignoring what was said by Susan Rice and Jay Carney.
Four Americans died on 9/11/2012 and Obama lied [with the help of Crowley] on 10/16/2012.
@MataHarley:
I heard several female commentators say they didn’t like the aggressive nature of the debate while several male commentators said they liked it. I liked it. I was hoping Obama would slap Romney. Then Romney rip his coat off and start mouthing something that looked Chinese. Queue an accented voice-over saying, “Ah, you dishonor me and my family, for this you must pay.” Then the song Kung Fu Fighting growing louder in the background.
Every red-blooded male in America would have paused the DVR, pulled the emergency beer cooler close to the couch and said, “now this is a debate.” 🙂
@Aqua, politics is a bloodsport, no doubt. And I wouldn’t have minded the aggression were it actually contributing something new, and not just an encapsulation of their campaign stump speech talking points, plus off tangent BS to their respective coached “gotcha” quests.
Actually heard from a conservative male business cohort who was reiterating the same thing about how annoying the dang thing was. It was, IMHO, simply a waste of broadcast time, and embarrassing to think either one of these two will be occupying the Oval Office.
I think many are in need of a refresher of the haps… without editorial and cherry picked excerpts. Here are the transcripts of a supposed biased Crowley during the debate, and the entire, typical Obama’esque vague and non committal Rose Garden speech statement.
What is most unfortunate is that the question was a good one, and remained unanswered for the entire juvenile back and forth (despite Crowley’s efforts to get that answer from Obama) – and all because each candidate wanted to deviate in order to attack each other on something else. That’s the problem with being too coached and scripted…. you can’t spin on a dime when a golden opportunity is handed to you.
@Aqua:
If the women dislike the last debate because of incivilities, they would have all died of heart attacks during the Adams/Jefferson presidential campaign era and been absolutely apoplectic during the Andrew Jackson campaign era. On a historic level, this last debate was pretty tepid.
My wife was also turned off by the man/anger thing. She particularly mentioned that she’d never seen Obama so caught up in it and that it was very unattractive and irritating. She left the debate.
Dc
she notice also, his posture was telling, his hand fold into a set of knuckles,
as he step closer which he stop when MITT ROMNEY step at the same time closer,OBAMA SHOWED HE WAS VERY ANGRY,
there was a few seconds, you thought he will hit him, then he went to candy told her a formal order
to get the script or transcript,
it gave me the feeling that is the way he rule everyone in the WHITE HOUSE,
I don’t think they like him in there if that’s the way he conduct himself,
that is like a UNION’S THUG
@MataHarley:
Is terrorism, by definition, a planned attack? If not, how is it different from a riot? I think Romney was basically asking what you suggest and Obama’s premeditated response was to reparse his speech to make it seem like he did tell the nation it was terrorism.
@Kevin, without wanting to go too in depth on the nuances, what you ask…“Is terrorism, by definition, a planned attack? If not, how is it different from a riot?”… seems to be defined either by subjectivity (with bias), or objectivity (without bias) from each individual.
I can only speak for myself. Personally, my objective opinion is that an act of terror need not be preplanned to be considered an act of terror. It becomes that based on the attackers’ ideology alone. So I consider the Cairo embassy attack, that didn’t result in deaths, just as much an act of terror as the consulate attack.
Some require the adjective of “terror” to be inserted in front of “attack” for specifics. I don’t. If the attack was committed by Islamists against western interests or “apostate” Muslims, it’s all terrorism to me…. preplanned or not.
@Kevin:
Candy Crowley said in reponse to Governor Romney:
“He– he [Obama] did say it was an act of terror.”
Unfortunately, she was wrong, as I have proven in my post #125. If you read Obama’s own words, nowhere did he say that Benghazi was an act of terror. Obama used many adjectives to describe the events in Benghazi, but “an act of terror” or “a terrorist act” was not one of them.
But what makes Crowley’s injection into the debate by stating her “knowledge” was that she had already disputed this with David Axelrod on her CNN show on 9/30/2012. She was fully aware that Obama had NOT called Benghazi “an act of terror” in that Rose Garden speech.
Now there are also some on this board who hold equal disdain for Romney as they do for Obama. These are not unbiased opinionators. That is fine; I personally have no love lost for Romney (he is actually not conservative enough for me). But I would vote for road kill over Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., Liar in Chief. And in that respect, I will continue to point out the fact that Obama lied about what he said in the Rose Garden, and Candy Crowley, who knew better, simply defended him to get him out of a jam.
@Mata,
No I’m not The One, Mata, but you’re welcome for my doing all the heavy lifting. 🙂
I was really starting to wonder if a Conservative would step forward to call idiocy on his or her fellow travelers for Crowleygate. Kudos to you, Mata, last of the brave. If it had been the other way around, I would have been embarrassed too.
Obama has put the slaughter of 4 Americans to bed with a Presidential statement that this was “NOT OPTIMAL.”
. . . . That’s it then. The CIC has decreed the event an inconvenience.
Of course, we could debate endlessly as to the definition of “optimal” or debate to whom that slaughter was not “optimal.” But, hmm, that would offend parsers less concerned with why 4 Americans attached to the Libyan consulate were unprotected and were therefore killed.
Or, perhaps we should parse it in the context of the venue.
James Raider
hi,
yes that’s why they did not receive the security they have ask for before more than once,
because they where found ” not optimal? enough for the PRESIDENT,
but it remain they fought bravely a war and it saved other lives because of their battle at 4 to hundreds
now we know his intent on the topic , and he came out with it himself,
a tragedy is in it
bye
@MataHarley: Thanks for the thoughtful definitions. It makes me wonder what aspect of Obama’s definition prevented him from categorizing Benghazi as terrorism.
@retire05: I think we basically agree. Obama was disingenuous. Crowley was incompetent.
Given the general disappointment with the debate, it might be interesting to discuss what other opportunities Romney missed, such as on the question of guns (what if one of the mass murder victims had a gun?), or education (what if he was studying something less valuable in the real world?), or equal pay for women (what if we looked at normalized pay?), etc. Or maybe we all agree on those.
I’ve also been considering if an online, non-real-time (maybe over a week), threaded discussion between Romney and Obama would be a good forum for a debate. I wonder if that would eliminate some of the boiler plate in favor of more direct and thoughtful responses. What do you guys think?
Kevin
they where debating from the questions from CANDY CROWLY AND ALSO FROM THE PUBLIC,
and those you bring did not surface in there,
it would have been good to see how OBAMA COME OUT FROM YOUR QUESTIONS ALSO.
BYE
Kevin, this goes back to the need for some to see the word “attack” preceded by the word “terror” in order to make it palatable. Parsing words and meaning of “is” isn’t a tactic confined only to the Democrats.
I linked the full content of Obama’s Rose Garden speech above. If anyone mandates the word “terror” before “attack” in reference to Benghazi, then they’ll also argue that Obama must not consider Sept 11th, 2001 a “terror” attack because he didn’t use it there either.
If I snip the content flow INRE “attacks”, it runs like this…
It’s a strange nitpicking diversion the conservative media and bloggers have chosen to do…. this “you didn’t call it an act or terror or terrorist attack… *just* an attack” bit. Whether preplanned or a violent riot, the idea that it wasn’t an act of terrorism by Islamists against US interests was never in question. The main complaint was that the WH didn’t inform the public that it was known to be a planned attack – albeit only going forward after the Cairo protests began – and instead chose to portray it as a spontaneous combustion of violence in response to Cairo’s violent protest. It’s like apples and oranges for discussion, because being planned brings in the quality of intelligence and security.
It’s going to be tough to convince anyone that Obama doesn’t believe that the 2001 attack wasn’t an act of terror, simply because he didn’t insert the word “terror” before “attack”, don’t you think? To most, attacks by Islamists are considered terrorism as a given.
As for Crowley, her words in the debate after the transcript reference are being ignored.
As I said, Crowley acknowledged that both were not being entirely truthful. Obama did categorize both the Sept 11th, 2001 attack and the Sept 11, 2012 attack as acts of terror that will not shake the resolve of the US. Right behind saying that, Crowley also agreed with Romney as to the riot misinformation.
Mata, the president has created problems of distrust by refusing to use the words referring to terror (terrorism, terrorist). These problems could have been avoided, but for some enigmatic reason he chose to leave America wondering about his real motives in refusing to acknowledge terror; whether the reluctance is based in deep-seated sympathies to Islam is the motive that has Americans questioning his loyalties. Designating the Fort Hood Massacre as “work place violence” is an example, but in general, the War On Terror has been dropped from the official lexicon. Now we may soon be engaged in a war against “violent demonstrators” and many Americans will become even more suspicious of this president.
Skook, I don’t disagree that this admin has chosen to water down descriptions and words in order to be nanny politically correct.
But you also cannot deny that Obama has out cowboy’ed Bush by launching more drone attacks in his term than Bush did over two terms, as well as invading Pakistan sovereign territory to get UBL. I don’t agree with either of those because the diplomatic relations with those nations has deteriorated, and intel has been denied by killing operatives instead of being able to interrogate them. But there is no “wondering” about “real motives” since he is aggressively, and often unwisely, prosecuting the defunct war on terror.
For an anti-war POTUS, he’s wreaked more havoc than “war mongering” Bush. In the process, he’s turned former Muslim allies into enemies by helping to remove apostate Muslim leaders that cooperated, plus alienated our western allies. I have never seen such a chaotic and ineffective foreign policy. About the only thing he can tout is a high body count of bad guys, plus an unknown amount of collateral damage.
@Skookum: Good point, Skookum.
Remember how Obama set up Nat/Geo to show his ”getting Osama” movie just before the election?
Looks scary now.
Nat/Geo is on high alert and special security has been called in.
People who work there are looking for bodyguards.
Why?
The number of threatening emails, phone calls, letters and so on sound serious.
Will there be arrests of mass numbers of American Muslims just so Obama can get that movie shown before the election?
Or will Nat/Geo employees be killed?
Some details here:
National Geographic Channel ‘bombarded’ with terror threats over bin Laden raid movie
Make that a war against “Violent Spontaneous Demonstrators”
Nan, Obama and National Geographic are caught between a rock and a hard place. Obama wants to be a hero to the Muslim, but needs to make the assassination of Bin Ladin a campaign issue to win reelection. However, if he promotes the assassination of Bin Ladin , who is fast becoming an iconic martyr in Muslimville, there is the distinct possibility he will have a major “Violent Spontaneous Demonstration” with more dead Americans, this time it will be real Obama toadies.
National Geographic wants to carry the hot bathwater for their mutual and consensual bathing in the same tub, but it might mean a deadly surprise by “Violent Spontaneous Demonstrators.” This is high drama worthy of any soap operas over 50 years old. These suspenders leave me dangling in the wind.
Good find Nan, the suspenders (binders) tighten around the neck of Obama
National Geographic is the only Obama water carrying site I visit without feeling rancor. They sometimes have unbiased scientific and historical articles with great photography.
What a testimonial, but this is the only way to deal with the dishonesty of the MSM.
Skooks Terror What’s in a word? Terrific once was “full of terror” Who cares what it’s called. There’s alot of dead terrorists and 4 dead Americans and the unending fight goes on. Sickening.
National Geographic is truly a GREAT magazine. I’ve had a subscription for over 40 years—remember those topless natives before Playboy?
SKOOKUM
the people of the FORT HOOD TERRORIST ATTACKER,are publicly demanding
this day , marching on the streets to have the real label on the name of the terrorist attack
Included in the important paper needed by them to settle their personal affairs
some of the 13 HAVE BEEN SHOT BY THE TERRORIST 3 TIMES,
you really want to make sure the person is dead for sure if you shoot him 3 times,
don’t you. and if you call on the ALLAH to be your witness that this terrorist
executing the wish of the one representing ALLAH which is to kill infidels
which you cannot convert, as he try hard to convert THE WOUNDED WARRIORS
suffering from pstd PTSD in the hospital he was working as a PSYCHIATRIST
and one of them came TO FLOPPING ACES IN 2009 here to say that his doctor
was telling them strange words in foreign language, and ENGLISH ALSO
to teach them ,which he said to not
comprehend he thought
it was because he had the PTSD,
I remember because I felt compel to answer to him even that my early difficult efforts to express words of the ENGLISH language at the time ,
Mata, Pakistan was a bit of over reach, but when all things are considered, a competent State Department should have been able to iron out the problems by now.
The drone attacks are interesting from the Pacifist Partiers, that has no qualms over death from above if it is a Democrat pushing the buttons; in my book, they have rendered themselves beneath contempt and consideration with their hypocrisy.
The question of collateral damage is a sad one; since we as Americans have values against the slaughter of innocents. In Obama’s defense, some of these bad guys would die of old age before the put themselves in a compromising position and thus vulnerable to capture. Thus, making a crispy critter out of a disgusting sack of degenerate DNA in a manure sack is the only viable alternative.
Let Freedom Ring!
Skook, the difference between Pakistan with Bush/Musharraf and Pakistan with Obama/Zardari is that Bush always did tacit clearance for US activity in their airspace and territory. Then Musharraf would give a public huff and puff just to appease those who don’t like Pakistan appearing as a US puppet. That behavior, beneficial to us, is what got Musharraf ousted, and a less friendly to US regime in.
Obama campaigned on disrespect for Pakistan right out of the gate, saying he’d go in there for UBL… with or without Pakistan’s approval. Then he did so. There is no State Dept that can undo a POTUS/CiC that demonstrates this amount of disrespect for a Muslim ally’s sovereign territory.
INRE the “Pacifist Partiers”… that’s sort of a laugh. Dems like to portray themselves as anti war, yet most of the US wars in the past century were started by “Pacifist” Democrat Presidents. Odd, don’t you think, that so many ignore history?
“In Obama’s defense…”…. LOL Never thought I’d hear those words out of your mouth, Skook.
@Skookum:
I am puzzled why there are those who feel the need for redundancy, repeating what I wrote in post #125, not just once, but twice. Now, I understand that there are some personal dynamics in the intent, but still, I am sure that others reading this thread don’t need to have Obama and Crowley’s words given to them more than once.
The importance of not calling a spade a spade (a terrorist attack) is due to the very history of this administration you cited. “Work place violence”, etc. Not to mention that any mention of “terrorism, Islam, Muslim, etc” have been removed from the military training lexicons. We can’t be offending the radicals, you know.
But even more important was the impression that Obama thought Crowley had the transcript at her disposal. I believe it was a slip on his part to say “get the transcript” and Crowley decided to inject her opinion into the debate. As moderator, she should have said “I don’t have the transcript in front of me; I am not here to comment on the transcript; I am simply the moderator” any number of comments other than the one she made.
Crowley backed Obama in spite of her interview with David Axelrod where she took an entirely different position, yet there are those who would say “nothing to see here, move on.” Now we are learning that Crowley decided to give Obama more speaking time, although the debates are timed, due to the claim that Obama speaks more slowly than Romeny and CNN is going to do a word count to make sure both candidates were allowed to say the same amount of words. How absurd can a media outlet get?
Obama has said “words matter.” Well, yes they do, and if he thought at the very beginning the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, he should have said so, unequivocally. But he didn’t, only making vague references to terror both on 9-11-01 and 9-11-12. And no amount of parsing what Obama said in the Rose Garden eliminates the fact that Susan Rice, with the full approval of the Oval Office, went on news talk shows and said Benghazi was, in fact, a result of a [non-existant] protest and an internet video, as did Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at the hanger receiving the bodies of our slain Americans.
But other questions remain: Charlene Lamb testified that she was the one responsible for denying Ambassador Stevens the additional security he had requested, as well as the one who made the decision to not extend the tour, or replace, the American security that was present prior to August. Since when does someone who is that far down the food chain at State make such an important decision on the security teams of our FSO in volitile areas?
Or can we ignore what Obama said in the Rose Garden?
“I think both Secretary Clinton, and I, relied deeply on his [Ambassador Stevens] knowledge of the situation on the ground there.” Even if one thinks that does not indicate that Obama was in contact with Ambassador Stevens, it does give indication that Hillary Clinton was, and she reports directly to the President. What both Obama, and consequently Joe Biden, was trying to pass off on the American people was plausible deniability. And so the spin game began, starting with Obama and Clinton, themselves.
Skookum, interesting how the press is no longer interested in photos of returning flag draped coffins. Remember when that was a big issue for the press? Or the “grim milestone” of 2,000 dead American military in Iraq which dominated the headlines for days, now gets relegated to page 3, left hand column, when that “grim milestone” was reached in Afghanistan, the “good” war?
If there is any example of the disaster this administration’s foreign policy has become, it is the fact that it took three weeks for our State Department to secure Libyan visas for the FBI to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Is the leader of Libya no longer taking calls from Obama?
The term/phrase “Pacifist Partiers” has a myriad group of covert messages. Partiers can only maintain their momentum of reckless abandonment for so long before they must sober up to go to work. The Pacifist Partiers carried on their drunken superficial orgy of hatred towards Bush and of contempt for war until a Democrat was elected who promised t o rain down holy Hell on UBL and company. The sanctimonious calls for peace in our time were quickly shelved for calls of kick the manure out of them Obama. Their fascination and heartfelt grief for our war dead was forgotten and the price of death became more of an obligation to be paid by those who felt a strong loyalty to America and it evolved until it was to be expected of them without complaint or remorse. How phony and superficial can a group of people become? They can become much more phony and superficial by trying to turn an example of supreme incompetence and negligence into a political advantage by lying and parsing words. Taking responsibility with caveats has become noble under the Obama Administration, but in Obama’s defense, his administration seems to be in such a rout and state of confusion, no one seems to be in charge or knowing what is happening on the other side of town.
It is natural to surmise, if you can’t keep your administration functioning smoothly, how can you direct the most powerful country in the world with its massive State Department and all the foreign negotiations happening every day. Is it no wonder Obama feels lost and bewildered when the country he helped liberate turns on his diplomatic delegation. Is it no wonder he insists on moderators who can bail him out of tight situations or at least wash his back while they are bathing in the same fish tank.