Posted on 10/20/2012 1:07:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto on Thursday offered a plausible explanation for why President Barack Obama, during Tuesday night’s debate, felt confident he could count on moderator Candy Crowley of CNN to back him up on how he had uttered the phrase “acts of terror” the day after the Benghazi attack.
On her CNN State of the Union show back on September 30, Crowley interviewed David Axelrod and during that segment she was as incredulous as Mitt Romney was at the debate that Obama had initially referred to “acts of terror” in any relationship to Benghazi.
In “Was Candy in Cahoots? Almost certainly not. Occam’s razor suggests Obama took advantage of her,” Taranto postulated in his October 18 “Best of the Web Today” column:
Here’s what almost certainly happened: After the interview, Axelrod, or someone else from the campaign, called Crowley’s attention to the White House transcript. She read the relevant portion and conceded that Axelrod was right: Obama had called the attack an act of terror. As we wrote yesterday, such an interpretation was reasonable, although it was a matter of opinion because the President’s statement was ambiguous. Obama was briefed on all this during his debate preparation.
If this surmise is correct, then Crowley knew about the “acts of terror” Easter egg hidden in Obama’s Sept. 12 speech, and Obama knew she knew. Romney did not know and was as incredulous as Crowley had been, because the administration had spent weeks peddling the claim that the video dunnit. Obama brought the matter up expecting incredulity from Romney and backup from Crowley. She therefore unwittingly played her role in Obama’s little ambush of his opponent. She was just clarifying the facts – or so Axelrod & Co. had led her to believe.
As noted in the MRC Media Reality Check by Rich Noyes, “Candy Crowley Aids Obama With 2-to-1 Liberal Agenda & Validation of Libya Falsehood,” Crowley on her CNN Sunday program State of the Union on September 30, “hit Obama advisor David Axelrod on exactly this point: ‘Why did it take them [the White House] until Friday [September 28], after a September 11 attack in Libya, to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved?’”
Axelrod retorted: “Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened.”
“Crowley wasn’t buying what Axelrod was selling,” Taranto recounted in citing the Septenber exchange highlighted by Breitbart.com’s Tony Lee: “‘First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff....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’ – at which point Axelrod interrupted her.”
Not in cahoots? So why did she cut off the Fast and Furious discussion right on queue?
Oh, I see!
And that must have caused her to interrupt Mitt every time he tried to make a statement.
There are some people in this world who simply have no shame..........and a lot of them seem to be in the media.
Spin city.
I wonder if Candy Crowley and John Candy were related.
If she's too stupid to realize she's being a puppet, why does anyone think she's smart enough to report the 'news'.
Right I believe that. I always carry papers given to me weeks before with me at all times...like her’s from 9/30 . She had the transcript right at hand. Good thing she keeps it with her.
Candy just WANTS to be used. It’s a dirty business, I’m sure she feels the same.
This account is an outrageous rewrite of what really happened!
If any reasonable, logical person views the 5+-minute video of the President's Rose Garden statement, listens to the inflections, and uses ordinary common sense, he/she will come away with the conclusion that he was not calling the Benghazi attack a "act of terror."
Crowley either did not do that, or she was complicit in promoting a lie.
Remember when the President once claimed that "words matter"? Crowley asserted on The View that it was "a semantic thing." No, Crowley, it was not a "semantic thing." It was a "truth thing."
She ate him.
The alternative explanation offered is not better....
Candy Crowley was STILL a plant.
In several different senses of the word.
As long as no one has a video clip of Candy Crowley saying, “Hi everyone! It’s great to be here! I’m thrilled to be in Cahoots, Iowa with the president on this momentous day!” So long as there is no such explicit statement from Candy, I guess no one can says she is in Cahoots.
She may not have been buying what Axelrod was selling, but she was more than accommodating when Obama yelled ‘get the transcript.’
She became part of the debate, rather than being an impartial moderator.
All better now.
They just can’t admit they used a fat chick.
I can see 0bama riding a Moped.
She should sing a song from the fifties.
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Her having a copy of the transcript shows it was a set-up.
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.