Imaging the obvious.Just one of those amazing coincidences. Nothing to see here.
Also watch the video of her answering Romney. She eye checks with Obama
in the middle of it
Why in the hell isn’t the Republican party picking the next moderator is the question?
Lots of statements have been made by the WH and 0 about Benghazi.
Curious that 0 should cite his Rose Garden statement as his defense, Candy then have it at the ready, and then spring to 0’s defense when Mitty challenged.
Just a highly remarkable coincidence, I'm sure.
seems like word is starting to get out about this. I wonder if Bill OReilly will have their “body language” specialist comment on this.
I htought that entire exchange between obama and cramdy crowlady — “I called it terrorism the next day”, “yes, he did”, “say it louder, candy”, “let’s move on” — sounded rehearsed.
Have always said he has an earpiece for one on one...A tiny implant would be sufficient.
You can see her shifting papers, apparently including the transcript, long before she verifies 0bama's request.. This is hugh and series!
“get the transcript”
I missed that tidbit until now. Incredible that Obama summoned her to get the transcript. Do we believe that Obama new beforehand that she had the transcript?
Well whatever happened, it worked. On several MSM as well as a DNC spinner on Fox, the new talking points are, “he has called it an act of terrorism, from the beginning, starting with the rose garden”
Romney did screw up, though.. He should not have said ‘act of terror’, he should’ve said ‘terrorist attack’. 0bama STILL has not called the Benghazi event a ‘terrorist attack’. 0bama will NOT EVER say ‘terrorist attack’. Romney needs to hit 0bama with this HARD.
That has been my contention from the minute it happened, it was coordinated.
Imaging the obvious.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.
Definite proof of collusion. Romney should refuse to participate in the third debate.
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?
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.