Yeah, and the fat "lady" sings!
Posted on 10/19/2012 9:47:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the game of poker it’s called a “tell.” A player raises his left eyebrow or licks his lower lip or makes some other unintentional but revealing gesture every time he draws a third jack or, alternatively, bluffs. A skilled opponent uses this to his advantage.
In Monday night’s third and final presidential debate, we will see whether Mitt Romney is skilled enough to read Barack Obama’s “tell” on Benghazi. He already used it, tipping his hand in Debate 2, but Romney either missed it or failed to call the president out on it.
See if you can pick it up. Here is the official White House transcript of the president speaking at a campaign rally in San Francisco on Oct. 9:
Now, four years ago, I made a few commitments to you. I told you I’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said I’d end the war in Afghanistan, and we are. I said we’d refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is no more.
Here he is two days later in Miami. Again, the source is the White House website:
Four years ago, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq—and we did. I said that we’d end the war in Afghanistan—and we are. I said that we’d refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is dead.
Now compare both excerpts from his standard prefabricated stump speech with his claim during the debate last Tuesday:
[W]hen it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I’d end the war in Libya—in—in Iraq, and I did. I said that we’d go after al-Qaeda and bin Laden, we have.
Did you notice the difference? It’s subtle but substantive. The line about al Qaeda being “on its heels” has been modified to the more modest claim that “we’d go after al Qaeda.”
This was no slip of the tongue. Obama didn’t inadvertently omit a boast he meant to make. The day after the debate he said in Mount Vernon, Iowa (again, according to the official White House summary of his remarks):
Four years ago, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq—and I did. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan—and we are. I said we’d focus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11—and we have, and bin Laden is dead.
His spiel has been carefully reconfigured to match the revised administration narrative about what happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11. Early on, the president and his spokesmen clung to a plausible-sounding explanation for the attack—that it was a mob response to an anti-Islamic video. Even after House testimony clarified that that was not what went down, he dispatched his U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, to five (count ‘em, five) news shows the following Sunday to perpetuate the party line, which the president repeated himself on late night TV.
As it became increasingly obvious to the American public that this was a planned, coordinated terror attack, likely orchestrated by Osama bin Laden’s successor and specifically pre-determined to coincide with Sept. 11, Obama grudgingly accepted the truth—which he probably knew on Sept. 12, the day he made his Rose Garden speech.
If he tries to weasel out of his obvious politicization of the attack in Debate 3, as he did in Debate 2, Romney will be ready. And Obama knows it.
Or Better yet, Mr. President can you say for a fact that the weapons used to Assassinate our Ambassador, 2 former Seal Team members and a IT professional in Libya was not provided to terrorists in Syria with any American involvement?
He’d soil himself!
Connect the dots People. These animals turned on us after we supplied weapons and funding the “freedom fighters” in Syria, sources that came thru Quatar and Saudia Arabia.
I hope so, but that debate has yet to be had.
Plenty of things could go wrong.
And, by “wrong”, I mean;
-Liberal moderator intervention on behalf of the Democrat candidate.
-Fixed questions.
-Planted audience and questioners.
You know, the usual.
Yeah, and the fat "lady" sings!
Romney is giving Lil Barry enough rope to hang himself. The Won is digging his own political grave.
Howard is forgetting that Obama owns the third debate moderator as he has in the first 2 debates. Accordingly, the moderator of the third debate may unilaterally rule that Bengahzi has already been dicussed in previous debates and so is out of scope for this debate.
Obama also needs to be hammered on the comment he made to the Russians about having more freedom the second term. Call him on it and make him explain without a teleprompter.
That wookie looka like a man.
“My prediction is 5 years from now we will see a snap of Bammy at a Hawaii ice cream shop weighing 250 lbs”
Maybe he’ll hire Monica Lewinsky to help out so that she can stop feeling sorry for herself and her inability to find employment. If so, the snap would show the pair of them weighing in collectively at 500 lbs....
All that is needed in that respect is to continue to hammer at how Obama considers “lead from behind” to be a noble course of action.
The world NEEDS leadership from America, even though they fuss and fume about that at times - they realize it. When America FAILS TO LEAD, as we have during the last 4 years, it invites some other entities to fill the leadership void.
Americans can simply listen to Romney making such a statement, quickly consider what has occurred over the last couple years, and most of us will nod our heads in agreement.
I actually consider the Al Smith dinner to be Debate #5. Before that he won 2 against 0bama, one against Lehrer, and one against Crowley.
Watch the debate again. 0bama takes a big gulp when he’s telling a particularly bold lie, one that he worries about getting away with.
It might be interesting to note the President of Libya knew for certain what happened (”I have no doubt.) the next day.
Perhaps Obama can be asked why:
The president of Libya knew what took the president of the United States over two weeks to figure out.
It wouldn’t matter to a leftist if there was something wrong with it by the general ethical standards of society. That’s not their standard. Their standard is, “will it work”. Alinsky rules. These days, thanks to their lock on mainstream media, entertainment, academia, etc, they don’t even care if it shows that they cheat and lie. Who has been effective in making them desist by pointing it out? They just laugh because they always get away with it. The few times they don’t, the ineffective liar/cheater/whatever is thrown under the bus and into the black memory hole of history.
I still can’t believe no one’s ever gone after Sandy Berger for stealing government documents.
The more time spent talking about Libya means less time for Obama to spew lies about Romney’s tax cut. And because of the foreign policy debate then that means Libya will be the top news story for at least another week.
I’m with you. I am reasonably confident, but Mitt could very easily fall prey to Hubris and come out with some seemingly innocuous quip that blows the whole shebang. He has to be on his very best game because even though this is where Obama is weakest, it is also where they will use any “nukes” they have carefully stashed away.
We must not forget who we are dealing with here.
Let’s save the victory laps for November 7.
” It wouldn’t matter to a leftist if there was something wrong with it by the general ethical standards of society. That’s not their standard. Their standard is, “will it work”. Alinsky rules. These days, thanks to their lock on mainstream media, entertainment, academia, etc, they don’t even care if it shows that they cheat and lie. Who has been effective in making them desist by pointing it out? They just laugh because they always get away with it. The few times they don’t, the ineffective liar/cheater/whatever is thrown under the bus and into the black memory hole of history.”
Correct on all counts.
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.