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.”
As usual, our side “wins” afterwards when the deed is done and the sheeple are no longer paying attention. D’uh!
I guess they are still talking about this fat bitch and her obvious attempt to help the Fraud in the debate.
‘I am not evil, I am just stupid!’ One sorry arse defense for the indefensible.
Cahoots, conspiracy, collusion! Why can’t you people see that it’s none of that, that it’s what even a liberal I spoke to last night admitted - a conspiracy of minds, and that is much, much worse!
Sorry Meat---- it was Schnitts idea.
And their destruction as their ratings tank below water level.
You are welcome. Thanks for another great post. I believe James Taranto is correct. 0bama and Axelrod did use her, but she was she was willing to get herself used
Not buying.
I like James Taranto, but in order to buy this theory you have to disregard the entire context of the rest of the debate. Candy cut Romney off on Fast and Furious, and that answer was pertinent to the question. She selected questions which generally were hostile to Romney, and the one questioner potentially detrimental to 0bama was actually asking a question that was a perfect setup for the pResident to say what he wanted to do in a second term. Though that questioner appeared hostile (and probably was) the inquiry itself was a "soft" question. That 0bama did not hit it out of the park is a testament to the fact that he has no plan for the next four years except more anti-Constitutional executive orders, more debt, more welfare, more food stamps, more disability, more economic cronyism and of course more golf and more vacations for Mooch and her daughters.
It also ignores the fact that she repeatedly cut Romney off, and granted 0bama more time; now covered with a pathetically lame excuse that 0bama "talks more slowly."
I am truly amazed at the circling of the wagons around the collaborationist press here, even by columnists and hard news people who are supposed to be objective or conservative. In its totality, her debate performance was a clear, shocking violation of professional conduct and the rules of the CPD.
Stop with the excuses.
Oops that should be she was willing to let herself get used
Talk about a "war on women"--if Obama and Axelrod did this, then the feminists should find such an action toward one of their own "offensive," to use a word from the President himself!
Before I get responses, please note the sarcasm intended in my last comment!
She will go to the dance with anybody, and lay down easy.
bookmark
BS. This wit knew what was going on.
Oh PLEASE!!! James, why are you covering Candy’s wide arse??? She had thetranscript because Adolph Axelrod GAVE it to her and I’m SURE he HIGHLIGHTED that part for her!! How else could she put her finger on it so fast???
Crowley helped censor any discussion of both. She needed time for women inequality issue to help Obama with " war on women" campaign
Obama Lied, Crowley’s Cred Died
In particular, this passage is very good:
But facts that the president knew almost immediately, or even prior, began to trickle out, eroding the ground under his deception: There had been no protest at all in Benghazi. Al Qaeda was active in Libya. England had removed its diplomatic personnel for that reason.
There had been several threats and attacks aimed at the consulate and ambassador. He feared for his life. He requested additional security. The assault was sophisticated, well executed, and probably aimed at seizing intelligence about American activity in the area. State Department and almost certainly White House staffers watched the attack in real time from posted video monitors.
The truth now in plain sight underscores the president’s failures of policy and leadership. Until Benghazi, he could boast of a hopeful Arab Spring, winds of reform in the Middle East, advancing peace, and al Qaeda “on the road to defeat.” Those happy talking points lie in blackened shards.
Obie was trying to hang on to his one accomplishment; al Qaeda died with Usama bin Ladin
It was a set-up, but how did they know Romney would refer to that phrase? I think there’s a mole in the Romney debate prep - or maybe he needs to work in a shielded room that has been swept for listening devices.
So she wasn’t a corrupt moderator, just stupid. That makes it better. [/sarc]
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.