Posted on 10/18/2012 9:30:39 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
LOL! That’s not too far from the truth. It SICKENS me how the devil fools the people. 0bama is the devil. EVIL DEVIL.
This whole 14 days of Youtube and fake protests and stuff now never happened. History has been rewritten in front of our faces and the MSM is in full compliance.
It’s blatant. But you know what? If the RNC and Mitt Romney don’t have a problem with it, I am not going to defend them.
I’ll vote for Mitt, but if he and the RNC won’t stand up against crap like this, I still see them as Keystone Kops. Better than the blatant socialists, but they aren’t impressing me much.
Crowley’s comments both during and after the debate, are anything but clear.
During the debate, she’s quoted as saying:
Crowley: “He did call it an act of terror. It did, as well, take—it did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”
It took 2 weeks for the “idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out”? What? It took 10 minutes for that idea to come out, because that’s the fiction the administrations wanted pushed. In fact, it took 2 weeks before the administration fully specified that the riot over the tape was a complete fiction.
So, during the debate, Crowley aggressively supports Obama’s contention, putting Romney in his place, then offers this thin gruel to him in support? Yes, it was obvious from her inflection that she was tossing a bone to Romney, but it certainly wasn’t obvious in what she actually said. Quite the opposite.
And then, after the debate Crowley claimed the following about the exchange with Romney:
” ...because, right after that I did turn around and say but you are totally correct, that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was a, you know, this riot right outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t. So he was right in the main but I just think he picked the wrong word.”
No, she in no way said “you are totally correct.” She said, “you’re correct about that” in reference to her convoluted statement about the tape and the riot. And what in hell did she mean by “I just think he picked the wrong word”? What word? Who picked the wrong word? Romney? Terrorism? What?
Now add in these two factors. Obama waited as Romney dug deeper into his accusation and then directed Crowley to “Get the transcript!” As soon as he said this, a statement which directly implies that she had the transcript available and that he knew full well that she had it, Crowley immediately supported Obama. She didn’t hesitate for even a second, as one would if an unexpected request had just come at her. No “What transcript?” No “I don’t believe I’m supposed to interject my own comments” or even evidence that she reflected on that.
No, she just immediately supported Obama. This was a trap, pre-arranged, right down to the audience suddenly applauding Crowley and Obama as Obama said “Can you repeat that Candy?”
Reporters should be camped out in Crowley’s back yard until she finally admits her obvious complicity in helping Obama to overcome his greatest weakness at the time of the debate, his lying for two weeks about Benghazi, a lie he promulgated longer than anyone else in his administration. Furthermore, CNN’s executives should be grilled daily about their interpretation of the event and should, in turn, be seeking to get to the bottom of Crowley’s part in all this.
I’m inclined to think nothing will come of this. First, it sounds like there isn’t any way of knowing whether she had the actually transcript with her or not. Obama may have simply meant that he was so confident in what he was saying that people could check the transcript for themselves. At least that is a plausible interpretation. And lastly, i read somewhere yesterday that Axelrod had been making the rounds recently saying that the President mentioned “terror” early on, which could be what Candy was thinking about.
That doesn’t mean i think Candy or CNN should be let off the hook by a long shot. Her bias is still blatant, transcript or no transcript, collusion or no collusion. That CNN Is going out of their way to stick up for her (eg. Obama spoke slowly and that’s why he was allotted more time, which is completely laughable) shows that Candy accurately reflects the overall organization and that they have no shame.
People that understand saw it for what it was. People that don’t understand can’t really be convinced. It’s sort of like telling a joke, then having to explain why it was funny.
Definite proof of collusion. Romney should refuse to participate in the third debate.
If this was a setup, and I believe it was, then I'd have to be pretty foolish to think it stopped there.
I believe that Bambi's improved performance during the 2nd debates stemmed solely from the fact that he had the questions in advance .. up to and including the knowledge that his opportunity to bring up the 47% would be presented at closing ... when Romney wouldn't have a chance to respond.
As I see it, it is up to Romney, to forcefully and aggressively correct these lies, this is so imperative, not just to the election, but the security if this nation, that he should call a preemptive press conference. He will be facing the closing pitcher on Monday, and they will be ready for him on Benghazi, he will be all but shut down.
I’d like to report a similar occurrence from the debate. One of the first questions asked of Romney was what he was going to do to address inequities in male/female salaries. All would agree that that was a wacky question for a Presidential debate. Yesterday (the day after the debate) I received in the mail a full color mailing which asked something like “Do you believe that women’s rights in the workplace should go back to the Stone Age? Greg Ball(R) does”. The wording was almost identical to the question posed at the debate. Methinks the young lady was a Dem plant. Who chose the questions used?
Those of us on dialup can't -- the site requires we download Java software Disqus and run it to see the comments.
At any rate, despite progressive Dem "talking heads," their "pundits," and "useful idiots," "the People" are not stupid enough to buy the arguments being put out there by the "progressive" spinners--not even Crowley's "The View" comment that her involvement in the deception was "a semantic thing."
It was not a "semantic thing," for all across America honest people know the difference between deception and honesty when they see and hear it.
During the debate, the President claimed that questions or criticisms about his Administration's handling of security, and subsequent dissembling about the deaths of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi were "offensive" to him.
Is that not the very same word he used about complaints on the "leaks" which leading Intelligence Committee members of his own Party attributed to the White House? --that was "offensive" to him?
Perhaps he does not realize how "offensive" his Administration's lack of credibility is to his employers--"the People"!
". . . he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." - Jefferson
When a man stands before the world and makes claims which are as easily disproven as those made by the President, then, truly, "his infamy becomes more exposed."
The 5-minute Rose Garden statement was played on FOX Radio, and, in context, it reveals that both Crowley and the President might take Jefferson's warning to heart: "Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice."
Tuesday night, American voters saw the "chicanery," the "dissimulation," the "trimming," the "untruth," and the "injustice" attempted by avoiding the real question from the audience, and on November 6, both may see that the President did not "extricate" himself from the "difficulty" of his attempted misrepresentation and cover-up of a terrorist attack during his watch.
I can’t watch the videos while at work. I have been asking this question all day today. About Obama saying “get the transcript”.
The only question I have (if someone could kindly answer) is who was Obama directing the comment to? If Romney, then he was telling Romney to just look at transcripts. If Candy, then collusion. Thanks in advance.
Reminds me of what Gen. MacArthur said, when he was told Pres. Franklin Roosevelt had died: "Now there was a man who never told the truth, if a lie would suffice."
Newt woulda never stood for that ..he likely woulda called Crowley on that transcript being right there at that second on the spot
the GOP brass has as much influence there as I have in Fresno for here
in other words ..not a whole lot
GOP powers that be can refuse to go along next time but not much chance...they ware mostly weak spined...I heard both Laura Ingram and Sean yesterday going on about how fair Candy usually is...barf barf whores all them...incestuous...except Levin
For the 3rd debate, this is where Romney trashes 0bama for blaming the ‘YouTube video’ for days after he said ‘act of terror’ in the Rose Garden. He should ask 0bama, “Why did you blame a movie for days, including in your U.N. speech, if you knew in the Rose Garden this was an ‘act of terror’ not connected to the movie in any way? Why did you call the Ft. Hood shooting ‘workplace violence’ when the perpetrator was shouting ‘Allah Akbar’ as he fired his weapon? You STILL have not called either a terrorist attack, Mr. President. WHY, Mr. President?”
Couple that with the “ Russian flexibility” comment and O is set for the knockout.
Candy got to pick the questions. She referred to doing so with “her team”. What do you want to bet that Axelrod provided her with her very own intern to help out for the occasion?
He was clearly saying it to Candy.
He was clearly saying it to Candy.
He was clearly saying it to Candy.
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.