DID CANDY CROWLY JUST HAND THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENCY TO.... MITT ROMNEY?
Old Salt
2012/10/17 20:55:37
|
|
|||||
|
190 votes
|
|
74% | ||
|
26 votes
|
|
10% | ||
|
42 votes
|
|
16% | ||
Please do not ask for some LINK to a blog, for I am writing this based on my own opinion.... and I think Im right! In last nights Presidential Debate, the President had just sat down when Governor Romney came up to him with the following exchange:
Romney: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"
OBAMA: "Please proceed Governor."
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."
OBAMA: "Get the transcript."
MODERATOR CROWLEY: "It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror. "
Obama: "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"
That exchange bothered me greatly, not from the standpoint, like everyone else, upset that the moderator would so "blatantly" choose sides! Rather, it was something troubling that I was seeing a total detrimental statement that would cost the President this election, but I could not understand WHY I felt that way? All I knew, at the time, was the very worst thing President Obama could do, he did! For when he said, in affect, "At-a-girl, Candy, you go get him," he made that moment a "Highlight" of the entire debate. But again..... I just could not put my finger why I felt that was so damning to him at that moment! Last night, my old dog woke me up a 4 AM, scratching at the door. A clear sign that she needed to go outside for a pee! On the way back in to my house, it dawned on me as to what I actually knew I had witnessed from that debate! It was the END of Barrack Obama's Presidency in that ONE exchange!
WHY? There is not a person in the country who did not know Mitt Romney was referring to the President reframing from calling Benghazi a "Act of Terrorism" rather than an "act of terror!" A man can beat his wife and be charged with an act of Terror, but that does NOT make him a "Terrorist," rather just a creep of a man! The whole country KNEW that the President was playing a "word game" and trying to use it as a defining moment that Romney was lying or was caught calling him a liar!
Now, WHY does this lose the election for President Obama? The people in this country who do not actively watch a FOX News or dig deep into the stories published by conservative writers in the Internet! Nor are fully aware of all the cover-ups that have been going on since the death of Ambassador Stevens! IF it had not been for a FOX news reporter, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have never been approach in Peru! On the night of September 12th, the Main Stream Media took decisive and deadly aim at Governor Romney's statements rather than trying to get to what "really" happened on the night four Americans were killed by Al Queda Terrorist! Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans have been relatively protected from hearing Susan Rice going on FIVE Sunday talk shows declaring that it was NOT Terrorist that were involved... but a "angry mob" reacting to a video no one in the Middle East had even seen!
So..... when the President yelled from his chair..... "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" He contributed to the most significant moment of the entire debate..... for people want to now know the truth! So the talk for the entire next week will be.... Benghazi, Libya and what did the President Know and WHEN did he know it! Already today, Ms. Crowly has visited three major network shows declaring that she was not taking sides, rather they both had points that were true! So... what will transpire in this next week? Each network will now be FORCED to cover this story to include what the President actually said and a time line of the entire events on each network News program! That is one full week on the Libya Terrorist attack..... then..... the final debate ...... Foreign Affairs...... the LIBYA Terrorist attack! Old Salt
Top Opinion
-
BlueMax372 2012/10/17 21:08:29
Yes- -that is exactly what I thought right when he did it!
I was like...... 'did he just reiterate her lie on live t.v.!?' How will the media cover this up for him!?
Getting caught lying is neither the first or the worst thing to happen to Romney, it's much more devastating when he gets caught saying what he really thinks.
Though I think a better question is what didn't Romney lie about? I don't think there has been a position on which he hasn't changed his views. If there is one I'd certainly like to hear about it.
So does it bother you that Romney's biggest problems with Obama's foreign policies are purely rhetorical or does that make no difference to you? Just curious.
Look, this isn't just a matter or "rhetoric". This is an example of Obama attempting to misslead us. I have serious reservations as to why he would do such a thing. What was Obama trying to cover up? What more are we going to find? Why do people like you defend him anyway? What do you get from Obama that replaces the truth?
In most likelihood there was conflicting intelligence, because of what was happening in Egypt and other places where there were anti-American protests. I doubt that CIA was deliberately lying in its talking points, which credited the video as the cause of the attacks, so it looks like that was a product of incompetence on multiple levels. Hardly surprising when CIA is involved I suppose. Though I'm purely speculating at this point, since I don't know what intelligence reports administration officials or even CIA were looking at.
Regardless of the actual cause of the attack even if you or Romney could demonstrate that Obama administration is or was deliberately misleading the public, fact is what Romney said was false.
If holding Romney as some sort of paragon of truth and consistency is important to you then I can see how that might be a problem for you, but I don't really expect that from a politician of any stripe, which is why I said, "even if Romney wasn't lying".
I take no issue with investigating this or any administration for any policy or conduct failures if the goal is to find out what actually happened, but you don't seem to be interested in that. You already reached your conclusions, so it's not an in...
In most likelihood there was conflicting intelligence, because of what was happening in Egypt and other places where there were anti-American protests. I doubt that CIA was deliberately lying in its talking points, which credited the video as the cause of the attacks, so it looks like that was a product of incompetence on multiple levels. Hardly surprising when CIA is involved I suppose. Though I'm purely speculating at this point, since I don't know what intelligence reports administration officials or even CIA were looking at.
Regardless of the actual cause of the attack even if you or Romney could demonstrate that Obama administration is or was deliberately misleading the public, fact is what Romney said was false.
If holding Romney as some sort of paragon of truth and consistency is important to you then I can see how that might be a problem for you, but I don't really expect that from a politician of any stripe, which is why I said, "even if Romney wasn't lying".
I take no issue with investigating this or any administration for any policy or conduct failures if the goal is to find out what actually happened, but you don't seem to be interested in that. You already reached your conclusions, so it's not an investigation that you want. You want a witch hunt. And just because I don't that doesn't mean i'm defending Obama.
The exchange only confirms what I said in my original post that actual policies matter very little to most Americans, which is why the thread, every response I got, and our exchange does not contain any policy discussion.
The evidence shows that, not only did the state dept know it was an act of terror, but no mention of a mob protesting a youtube video had anything to do with it. It further goes on to explain that the terrorists were calling for an attack on the US Embassy in Tripoli, which we know did happen as well.
Basically, the only thing we haven't seen yet is why Obama declined the QRF to save the Ambassador.
Well, that and why he used the video excuse for 14 days when he knew what really happened.
Again, Obama lies and you defend. Romney correctly describes Obama's statements and you call him the liar.
What is in it for you? Your hero is a lying fool. Why defend him?
Stating that Romney lied is in no shape or form a defense of Obama, and i don't consider him a hero. Not sure why you decided to lie about me. After all you already have all the evidence proving beyond shadow of a doubt that Obama was personally responsible for the coverup I'm expecting you to turn it over to Republicans in House of Representatives so that they can initiate impeachment proceedings. Failure to do so will tell me that either you don't have the evidence or you are protecting Obama.
I predict that should Obama win the election, Congress will be more than happy to impeach him within 6 months.
Also impeachment hearings wouldn't even begin before election even if you submitted all the evidence tonight.
Sorry, but I don't consider prosecution of crimes to be a partisan or even electioneering dependent affair. You could post your evidence online or turn it over to Republicans in House of Representatives in 5 days. If I had the evidence I'd do both, nor would I wait till after the election.
With regards to the evidence, there is enough that is public knowledge now to follow through with impeachment hearings, but Congress has already had hearings and they have stopped through the election season. They will handle it if need be.
If they don't, I will personally petition against those that represent me until they are gone.
As I stated in my blog... obama was an indiot for his outburst and he WILL regret it on the Sunday News programs and the domination Romney will come into the FINAL debate..... the Chew up his ass! :)
I'm sure your prognosticating abilities are just as good as your knowledge of US legal system, which is reflected by the number of all the domestic violence cases involving charges of "acts of terror".
What does your question have to do with my post?
Obama seemed to be goading Romney, because he was right in the most technical terms -- whether you view the video or read the footage, Obama called the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi "acts of terror" -- and in that singular play on words, Obama trapped Romney. It made Romney look like a novice debater and made Obama look arrogant.
But whatever. It's a debate. They are supposed to trade blows, etc.
However, this was NOT the moderators place to interject herself. In the end, she looks bad. She didn't really "take sides" because all she did was acknowledge that if you read the transcript, that is what he said.... but she did overstep her authority. Moderator is not meant to be an instant fact-checker. That's my two-cents.
Crowley cut Romney's time by 3 minutes in favor of Obama. Romney could use this time to say a whole lot more but he didn't have a chance to. :(
B, There's more to this story then your telling here. If it follows typical conservative patterns, there was more both before and/or after that is relevant to this discussion that you've... accidently, cut out.