Posted on 10/16/2012 8:52:50 PM PDT by bronxville
That is sarcasm, right? Because in the MSM, that lie is a career enhancer.
If this isn’t in an ad for Romney by 8am, someone isn’t doing their job.
If this isn’t in an ad for Romney by 8am, someone isn’t doing their job.To be clear, if the video of Crowley lying for Obama during the debate, followed by her video "correcting" herself after the debate isn't in an ad by 8am, someone isn't doing their job.
“every question was from someone religious or racial minority lib and the questions were soft balls for Obama”
When Obama addressed the audience member by the name of “Barry”, it looked to me like Obama assumed he had an ally but after the debate, there was Barry, smiling and standing next to Romney.
Another part of that brilliant tactic is that they intentionally left the compound unguarded for the ensuing three weeks in order to fool the terrorists into thinking that the Administration was incompetent.
Neither terror nor terrorist is in that statement. He used the words outrageous and senseless violence and only in the context of religious differences. That’s why Romney pressed the point, which Obama fell for.
“When Obama addressed the audience member by the name of “Barry”, it looked to me like Obama assumed he had an ally but after the debate, there was Barry, smiling and standing next to Romney.”
Woah really. I dropped my feed as soon as the debate ended. Need a screencap of that would make great imagery.
The terrorist were not fooled though, they knew he and his administration were incompetent.
What I want to know is.... how was it that Candy C was SO QUICK to SUPPOSEDLY “KMOW” that Obama had the word “TERROR” in the transcript???? She didnt have time to read the entire transcript while sitting there in the brief time that Romney made his objection?????
When Obama speaks ex cathedra, it is more than a simple lie. It becomes infallible doctrine that must be adopted by the entire party in order to preserve the fiction that Barack Obama is intelligent, truthful, and competent to be President.
An example of this type of statement is when he said in an early Democrat Primary debate in 2008 that he would talk directly with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that by doing so, he could defuse Irans nuclear and terror export programs. Instead of walking this statement back the next day, he enshrined this error as a cornerstone of his campaign and it became the fundamental weakness of his Presidential foreign policy.
Another example of this is his oft repeated promise that "If you like your doctor, you can keep him!" This was clearly and demonstrably not true under Obamacare, and the inability of the patient to continue current arrangements remains one of the primary reasons people resist the implementation of the rule. But Obama made this statement so absolutely and so emphatically that every Democrat was required to pretend it was true.
And now we come to his statement in last night's debate, full of bluster and high dungeon, that the suggestion that anybody in his team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, or anybody else, would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, is offensive, and not what he does as President or Commander in Chief. This statement now becomes the new Reality According to Barack Obama. Unfortunately for the President, it is easily contradicted by any of a thousand easily verifiable sources. Defending this statement is going to lead to endless contradiction and will only make the President look like even more of a manipulative liar.
She’s BRILLIANT, according to the Hussein Heads, and all they can talk about today is a BINDER.
This was a calculated lie on the part of O’Bummer. Didn’t I read that Axelrod told Crowley that O’Bummer said that earlier in the day just to plant the false thought in her head?
That was the single most destructive moment of the debate....the Romney campaign MUST run an ad on this issue and run it across the country, using her words, his words and his regimes words to discredit this exchange as it looked bad for him even though it was p[ure lies.
Totally agree with you. Romney missed this opening on stage, but people are now going to focus on how many times Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on a riot sparked by a video. Susan Rice on five Sept. 16 talk shows; Obama and Hillary with the coffins; Obama at the UN.
Obama - and Crowley’s - assertion that he called out Benghazi as a terror attack is absurd. Doing so would interfere with Obama’s narrative that al-Qaeda is defeated and that he - as he promised in 2008 - has made the Middle East like America, all because of him.
Plus Crowley is now backtracking, trying to save her journalistic credibility, to the extent she had some. Get the popcorn
Here is the CNN story where Axelrod is false programming Crowley and trying to rewrite history:
Speaking of chutzpah, Axelrod tried rewriting history in another part of the same interview:
“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” President Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley Sept. 30.”
LIAR LIAR LIAR
Did anyone see the “crowd” of undecided voters clap after Candy said the President was right? Most of America knows that it took weeks for it to be called terrorism....they tried to force feed “it was the video stupid”.
The simple answer is she didn’t, but that has never stopped a liberal from proclaiming they know all.
I so agree, Republicans get agree that all debates be moderated by Liberals; why didn’t Romney/Republicans insist on at least one Conservative?
I also feel Obama knew the questions; he had way too many facts and zingers....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.