Candy Crowley Defends Her Libya Comment During Presidential Debate (on The View)

ABC News ^ | October 17, 2012 | RUSSELL GOLDMAN

[maggief]

Debate moderator Candy Crowley defended her decision to interject in a heated moment about Libya during last night's presidential debate, saying she was not trying to "fact check," but just trying to move the debate along.

"It didn't come to me as I'm going to fact check that. It came to me as let's get passed this? To me I was really trying to move the conversation along? This is a semantic thing," Crowley told the hosts of "The View."

[Billthedrill]

A "semantic thing"? What on earth is this supposed to mean? She did exactly as she was supposed to do: derail any motion toward the issue of Benghazi and deflect criticism from 0bama in an area where his debate preparation told him he was vulnerable. There was nothing in the least inadvertent or accidental about it.

In 20 days we are going to have a referendum on the media, who are not going to like what they see.

[sargon]

With that explanation by Crowley, she has now been fully qualified as a lying sack of leftist shit.

I'm glad Candy finally removed any remaining doubt as to the purpose of her interruption with the blatant lie she just told on "The View".

Kick back, everyone, we're looking at a landslide. 0bama and his boot-licking lamestream media will not be able to stop the avalanche which is coming.

In a way, it's been good for these enemies of Freedom to fully expose themselves. They have helped assure that the repudiation of their dangerous ideology will be both thorough and exhaustively deep.

[UCANSEE2]

“don’t become apart of the story”... a pretty big rule in journalism.

Reality is quite the opposite, isn't it ?

Just ask WOODWARD and BERNSTEIN.

[izzatzo]

Odd how these spontaneous decisions always seem to favor the democrat.

[sargon]

These folks are not clueless they are calculating.

Maybe so, but methinks they have seriously miscalculated in this instance.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Yep. Thems was “some antics” she was involved in last night.

[Cuttnhorse]

Correct! I’m sure the obozo robots are groaning...this issue was fading from the reluctant lamestream media, now it is back on the front page and every word of what obozo has uttered is being micro examined.
Talk about unintended consequences...LOL!

[SC_Pete]

With the selected questions, the practiced theatrics and the Benghazi gotcha, we may have witnessed collusion and corruption of the political process.

[UCANSEE2]

The good part about this is that the Obama WH will have to spend most of their time, between now and the next debate, trying to 'fix' the Obama/Crowley lie about the events in Libya.

Now would be a good time for the video footage of Stephens being ceremonially raped to appear. Add to that the fact that just about everyone in Libya knew about it or saw it on TV, while it was kept from the US viewing audience.

Put it on YOUTUBE and call it 'The Innocence of the Libyans'.

[UCANSEE2]

Liberal logic = ‘If the word “terrorism” passed OUR President’s lips at any time in any context after the...

You certainly 'nailed' the President's 'technique'.

It's all about muttering KEYWORD PHRASES that SOUND GOOD, that RELATE to the issue, but somehow never lead to responsible action.

[jettester]

Not disagreeing with your idea - my statement was pointed at her “semantics” push-back. For her, it a “simple” thing, just some silly little words. For me, it is everything.

[dead]

[dead]

[UCANSEE2]

I thought the title said... Candy Crowley Defends Her Liberal Communist During Presidential Debate (on The View)

Well... you can now blame that on SEMANTICS.

[Tublecane]

Semantic my asa.

[dead]

Liberal logic = ‘If the word “terrorism” passed OUR President’s lips at any time in any context after the Benghazi attacks that is the same as saying the attack was a terrorist attac...’

Actually, he did not use the word "terrorism" in the Rose Garden. He said "terror" which does not mean the same thing.

"Terror" describes what is created, independent of the intent or cause.

"Terrorism" creates terror, but specifically by individuals acting lawlessly with the intent of advancing a political agenda.

The guy who shot up the Batman movie crowd clearly engaged in an act of terror, but was not a terrorist since he had no discernable political agenda as his motivation.

[UCANSEE2]

we may have witnessed collusion and corruption of the political process.

The boat already sailed on that 'process'.

[UCANSEE2]

How does one defend the indefensible?

With lies.

[righttackle44]

Move the debate along? She should move along from more all-you-can-eat restaurants.

[Slings and Arrows]

A "semantic thing"? What on earth is this supposed to mean?

'"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."'
--Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass