Crowley and Obama – a premeditated set up at Catallaxy Files

Crowley and Obama – a premeditated set up

This is not the scandal it ought to be. You watch the following and tell me after watching that moment at 1:30 whether or not when Obama says “get the transcript” that Crowley does indeed get the transcript. Why, of all statements available that either of the two candidates for president might have said, does she have that transcript, but more to the point, how does Obama know it?

http://youtu.be/RcTDE5stw7w

Obama can only know it if they had worked it out together in advance.

I have a more complete article with more discussion at Quadrant Online, A Trap Baited with Candy?. I am not the only one to have put this idea up, but either because of journalistic solidarity or the libel laws in the US it has not been pursued. But you look at this and if you don’t see how suspicious it is, I can only think it’s because you don’t want to.

Written by Steve Kates

October 21st, 2012 at 8:23 am

Posted in Uncategorized

239 Responses to 'Crowley and Obama – a premeditated set up'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Crowley and Obama – a premeditated set up'.

Steve, did you see the article by James Taranto in the WSJ?

He puts forward a credible thesis that Axelrod & Obama played Crowley like a sucker.

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.

Fact is that Crowley is such a knee-padding lefty she did not put the necessary level of scepticism and got stitched up.

She has no credibility with almost 50% of the US electorate and CNN’s ratings will continue to suffer.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 8:31 am
The really interesting thing is why the Republicans accept whatever leftoid shill moderator the Debates Committee appoint.
Perhaps it’s a bit like the Liberals with Their ABC, where learned helplessness conditions their every response.

Alfonso

21 Oct 12 at 8:40 am
Obama can only know it if they had worked it out together in advance.

I lean this view – the “Kates hypothesis” if you like – rather than the Taranto theory laid out in the WSJ.

Obama says to her “check the transcript” and she immediately picks it up off her desk. She then waves it around, interrupts Romney and tells Romney he’s wrong. That’s not being played for a sucker.

During the debate, I thought Obama was just engaging in a snipe at Romney. Only later I realised Obama was talking to Crowley.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 8:44 am
The fact is the lefty MSM have skin in this game, and that is the more that is found out, the more people will see how they enabled the lying of the Obama admin.

There are a number of headlines in the blogosphere riffing off the Left’s anthem from 2004:

Benghazi: Four Americans Died, Obama Lied, And The Press Complied

Token

21 Oct 12 at 8:47 am
Perhaps it’s a bit like the Liberals with Their ABC, where learned helplessness conditions their every response.

Last election Gillard was owned by Abbott in the town hall format so we can expect the Australian lefty media to try pull a Crowley type trick.

I see on twitter Mark Textor has been paying attention to the US Prez election so there is hope the Libs won’t fall for similar tricks.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 8:50 am
LOL conspiracy theory. dd, you’re better than this rubbish.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 8:54 am
Sure seemed like a setup. Upon the instruction to check the transcript Crowley waves a piece of paper around for theatrical effect only because she didn’t peruse it. Anyway, why would she have that particular transcript, and at her fingertips?

Biota

21 Oct 12 at 8:59 am
Perhaps it’s a bit like the Liberals with Their ABC, where learned helplessness conditions their every response.

Exactly. It’s like telling the leftie trolls here to fuck off; after having it all their way for so long it bites.

Abbott especially needs to sharpen up; he should tell the next abc ‘reporter’ to piss off.

cohenite

21 Oct 12 at 9:12 am
Cream buns for breaks mOron?

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 9:19 am
Cream buns for brekky mOron?

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 9:19 am
either because of journalistic solidarity or the libel laws in the US it has not been pursued

That’s simply not the case – the “libel laws” bit I mean.

America actually has freedom of the press – we don’t have the archaic, draconian versions of libel/slander/defamation laws when it comes to speaking about public figures that Australia and England have.

For a public figure to win a libel case against you they (yes the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the defendant as it is in Oz and Britain) would have to prove
–your article was libelous, and;
–it was published with “actual malice”

By the way, have you heard that Harry Reid might be a pederast?

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 9:29 am
Lots of “set up” theories:
https://www.google.com/search?q=crowley+obama+setup

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 9:54 am
Fatboy

The fact is that the despicable Kenyan directed that obese Crowley to go look at the transcript and did so in a way which indicated they were on the same page especially as Crowley was seen hunting around for a piece of paper on her desk when her master told her to.

That’s not a conspiracy theory fatboy, that’s a fact.

Now go eat a dozen Krispy kreams

JC

21 Oct 12 at 10:04 am
Steve’s Conspiracy of the Week.
It’s up there with dictionary editors conspiring with Labor, and the staging of the moon landings….
Relax, the CIA are on to it….

1735099

21 Oct 12 at 10:06 am
Here’s the link.

1735099

21 Oct 12 at 10:07 am
Remember – shiny side out………….

1735099

21 Oct 12 at 10:07 am
I tend to buy into taranto’s speculation as I don’t think Crowley could be so brazen. She was stupidly suckered I think.

Why don’t the right wing journals go after her and ask?

JC

21 Oct 12 at 10:07 am
Who really cares, though?

Romney won.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 10:10 am
Numbers

How do you explain the fact that the Kenyan told that obese Crowley to go to the transcript and she then on instruction waved a piece of paper around?

How do explain that silly cow wanting to redefine a word after the lyng slapper accused Abbott of hating women?

Look spud peeler, Kate’s is not playing any conspiracy theories. These are facts you fucking asshat.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 10:12 am
Why don’t the right wing journals go after her and ask?

I’d love to see that, if for no other reason than my own curiosity. She’s part of the story now and it’s entirely appropriate to interview her.

But probably what’s happened is the journalists have already interviewed her behind closed doors, and are disseminating the outcome to us indirectly. If so, it’s another example of the two-tiered information system currently running in journalism.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 10:14 am
Even on a ‘niceties’ level Romney was correct.

Obumma did not call the Benghazi attack an ‘act of terror’ and Obumma’s “acts of terror ” reference in the Rose Garden address to attacks on the US since 2001 clearly did not include Benghazi among pre-planned terrorist acts except arguably in the most elliptical sense in which an anti-US mob demonstration could be included as one of Obumma’s “acts of terror”.

Crowley and Obumma weren’t in a conspiracy.

Crowley was biased and unprofessional is all.

And quite stupid.

Overall the aftermath of Crowley has been a boon for Romney.

Unless Romney listens to silly squishes like David Brookes and other Rino establishment twits, he will drive a stake thru the anti-Christ on this issue, Monday evening US time God-(PBUH)-willing.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 10:24 am
Why don’t the right wing journals go after her and ask?

She’s not fronting.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 10:26 am
A more pertinent question to ask is this: why was Romney so gullible as to walk right into the trap that Obama set for him? How can the credulous fool be trusted when negotiating in the Middle East? Putin would run rings around him. He’s a tactical dunce.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 10:29 am
Fatboy

The fact is that the despicable Kenyan directed that obese Crowley

Candy isn’t like m0nty, JC.

She’s big-boned

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 10:29 am
How can the credulous fool be trusted when negotiating in the Middle East?

Maybe he could phone it in from Vegas.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 10:31 am
A more pertinent question to ask is this: why was Romney so gullible as to walk right into the trap that Obama set for him?

He wasn’t expecting Obama to tell Crowley to “get the transcript” and for Crowley to obey, and then interrupt him and debate him on Obama’s behalf.

However, yes Romney should have known about that trap and been more careful with his wording. Hell, I knew about it, simply because lefties on this site pulled the exact same stupid trick with the Rose Garden speech the previous week. We’d already worked through the whole thing and come out the other side.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 10:36 am
How can the credulous fool be trusted when negotiating in the Middle East?

Too right, monty. Perhaps Obama can teach Romney how it’s done?

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 10:36 am
Obama certainly has a smug look on his face as he says “Please proceed Governor” , it’s as if he knows what’s coming, he’s almost laughing, and thats something he hadn’t done up to then in a tense debate.

What ever it takes

21 Oct 12 at 10:41 am
I agree, Dave. As I said last week, the motherload was the administration lies about DA VIDEO WOT DONE IT. Clinton actually vomited forth this utter lie standing next to the ambassador’s coffin. The terror/terrorism angle was never the key thing and Romney’s choice of it was a mistake. However, in his defence it seems likely that was one of several arrows he had in the Libya quiver – but he was disrupted from firing as freely as he had a right to expect.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 10:42 am
” did not include Benghazi among pre-planned terrorist acts”

The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 10:43 am
How can the credulous fool be trusted when negotiating in the Middle East?

At least he will bow to nobody.

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 10:44 am
Uh-huh.

Bunch of dudes were just walking around that part of town with some RPGs and decided to kill the US ambassador.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 10:45 am
“Hey. Tragedies happen, accidents happen.”

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 10:49 am
…but he was disrupted from firing as freely as he had a right to expect.

And it’s this that we see again and again on such programs as Q&A, Lateline and 7.30. It’s especially egregious on Q&A. When a non-lefty comes up with an angle of rebuttal or critique that has an especial oomph, Tony Jones inevitably cuts off the speaker to dull and nullify its potency. If Bill Shorten or Lindsay Tanner are on the panel, however, they speak in almost perfectly uninterrupted lecturettes.

This is what they do.

What non-lefty figures have to do is go after them for their bias, name what they’re doing. And that means – especially on Q&A and like forums – do not delude yourself into being swept up in the phony bon homie of the group. (Pay attention, Joe Hockey). They do not like you or what you’re saying so don’t worry about angering or offending the fuckers.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 10:52 am
Jarrah demonstrates again that he is just a Google-user leftist fuckwit with offensively poor judgment

Quite apart from the testimony at the Congressional hearings, the day Obumma was bullshitting in The Rose
garden and equating his campaign workers effort in Las Vegas with the efforts of diplomatic delegation in Benghazi ie Set 12th, many sources reported the truth for example3:

1. The Attack on the US Consulate Was A Planned Terrorist Assault Against US and Libyan Interests
Press Release | September 12, 2012 at 14:37

2. U.S. officials: Attack on consulate in Libya may have been planned
Washington Post September 12

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 10:58 am
Obama admin recalibrating Benghazi narrative — again — before FP debate?

The administration’s new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The Times piece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack. The Ignatius column makes a directly political argument, claiming that “the Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior intelligence official.”

If this is the best the Obama administration can offer in its defense, they’re in trouble. The Times story is almost certainly wrong and the central part of the Ignatius “scoop” isn’t a scoop at all.

Hmmmm…

This is raising some serious questions in the intelligence community and from Congress about the White House’s manipulative handling of the situation, and certain Republicans (rightly) aren’t going to let this go

Quite so.

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 11:14 am
WTF?

They blamed a video.

This was and is a lie.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 11:17 am
Stephen Hayes: W.H. Tries to Write Al Qaeda Out of Libya Story

RTWT.

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 11:19 am
They keep changing the narrative, CL, and think no-one is going to catch on, or going to call them on it.

Smartest Kids In The Room. Yet they still haven’t learned that the cover-up is almost always worse than the original crime.

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 11:22 am
To me, the most extraordinaty thing about the entire Obama/Biden campaign is that they have not once made any coherent case for why they should be re-elected. There’s nothing. Not even a viral slogan like last time. Zip.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 11:22 am
When the Cat goes tu quoque, you know the right has lost the argument.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 11:27 am
Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone’s point of view based on criticism of the person’s inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3]

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 11:32 am
When the Cat goes tu quoque, you know the right has lost the argument.

When m0nty goes full space cadet you know m0nty is just being m0nty

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 11:33 am
There’s nothing. Not even a viral slogan like last time. Zip.

Officially, it’s “FORWARD!”

But that one’s already been kinda mocked … to … death.

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 11:42 am
There’s nothing. Not even a viral slogan like last time. Zip.

Officially, it’s “FORWARD!”

But that one’s already been kinda mocked to death.

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 11:45 am
Uh-huh.

Bunch of dudes were just walking around that part of town with some RPGs and decided to kill the US ambassador.

Lol

It’s exactly what I thought.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 12:03 pm
Hey mOron. If its a trap you retard then its a set up. Go an eat some more cream pies lard arise

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 12:08 pm
So let’s refresh..

The spud peeler and fatboy have so far walked away from countering my rebuttal to their accusation that Steve K was concocting conspiracies.

Fucking turds.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 12:09 pm
Tiny

I thinks it’s doughnuts he has a problem with, not cream pies.

It’s important to be accurate.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 12:11 pm
I doubt nUmpty would turn down any sort of pastries.

Dangph

21 Oct 12 at 12:14 pm
Maybe monty wears a hat.

cohenite

21 Oct 12 at 12:16 pm
Those doughnuts let him power drive that 5 iron a massive hundred metres. mOron is still upset that Slipper resigned and Shagger is in more strife.

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 12:16 pm
Hey mOron. If its a trap you retard then its a set up.

Yes, set up by Obama, using Crowley as an unwitting pawn. And Romney walked right into it. What a noob.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 12:17 pm
Yes, set up by Obama, using Crowley as an unwitting pawn. And Romney walked right into it. What a noob.

You are right. Romney really should have anticipated the duplicity of the lefty moderator.

But to his credit, he did say he wanted Obama telling the lie on record, and he did.

Dangph

21 Oct 12 at 12:23 pm
He did manage to get that, which was a win.

Dangph

21 Oct 12 at 12:24 pm
mUnted, 8:54 — “LOL, anyone who thinks this was a set-up is a M0R0N!!111!!!”

mUnted, 12:17 — “LOL, anyone who couldn’t see that this was a setup is a M0R0N!!!11111!!!”

Seriously, WTF?

sdog

21 Oct 12 at 12:25 pm
So he should never have mentioned it knowing that the sun king was that low and despicable? Piss off you fat turd

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 12:31 pm
But to his credit, he did say he wanted Obama telling the lie on record, and he did

No he didn’t. Obama refused to answer, which was smart. And he let Crowley do his rebuttal on his behalf, so that there are no juicy clips.

On the other hand, Obama’s biggest win in the debate involved him saying nothing. If Obama’s idea of debate preparation is to set up a moderator ambush, then he’s out of ammo and outclassed.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 12:40 pm
No he didn’t. Obama refused to answer, which was smart.

I was a bit off in the sequencing, but Obama did in fact state that lie on the record.

OBAMA: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime…

ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

Dangph

21 Oct 12 at 12:49 pm
Token nailed it…a well-executed sting operation.
Everybody knew Benghazi had the potential to be a major “gotcha”.
The Obama team would have devoted serious time to sanitising it.
The Romney team would be devoting serious time to weaponise it.
Crowley…any moderator…would have recognised the potential and read up on the subject.
Obamacare planted the seed…Crowley had the notes…Romney’s team was primed to go with the smoking gun.
There was indeed a smirk on Obama’s face at that point in the debate…he saw Romney rise to the bait….how could he resist.?
If Crowley did not also take the bait…no matter…the President was all set to haul in a huge trophy.
Romney’s team needs to carry the can for this, for they clearly saw only the possible prize and neglected to have someone play Devil’s advocate.
D.A: Obama must know this was a dangerous area….that it was inconceivable that it would not be raised. So how best to weasel out of it , neutralise it , or may even turn it to advantage.
This is where the Romney team failed miserably and left their boss seriously exposed.
They have a chance of redemption at the next and last debate.

John Williams

21 Oct 12 at 12:51 pm
I don’t know what drugs John Williams is on but I don’t want any.

Romney was caught wanting but not by Obama.

He was derailed by Crowley.

He made his point.

Everyone in the tv audience not already an Obumma-loving leftist knew Romney was right and the President was being a smart-arse.

Moreover they now knew beyond any of the routine defensive denials that the moderator was biased and rescued the President.

They also knew Obumma did not describe Benghazi as an ‘act of terror’ in the Rose Garden.

I repeat: even on the niceties Romney was correct.

Lastly the also were aware that the President did not ask the thoughtful considered question of the audience member and his work mates.

none of this worked in Obumma’s favour.

The news of the week was Benghazi and the administration’s reaction to it.

At last.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 1:05 pm
the President did not ~~ask~~ answer

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 1:06 pm
Now the failed Ausbone CEO is giving Romney strategic advice.

Can you also help Ryan out with some of your nutritional advice mUtty?

DavidJ

21 Oct 12 at 1:07 pm
mUnted, 8:54 — “LOL, anyone who thinks this was a set-up is a M0R0N!!111!!!”

mUnted, 12:17 — “LOL, anyone who couldn’t see that this was a setup is a M0R0N!!!11111!!!”

Seriously, WTF?

I shall explain for those who are slow, like sdog here.

Anyone who thinks it was a conspiracy between Obama and Crowley is a moron.

Those who think it was a trap set up by Obama according to Axelrod’s plan using Crowley as a pawn are probably on the money.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 1:26 pm
Anyone who thinks it was a conspiracy between Obama and Crowley is a moron.

She had the exact transcript he asked for, at the moment he asked. She then waved it around and, using it as evidence, debated Romney on Obama’s behalf.

At face value it looks like it was planned in advance. Now maybe it wasn’t, maybe there was this complicated mind-game that Axelrod played with her but the plain appearance is one of collaboration.

Therefore the onus is on her to explain that it wasn’t a set up, why she had the transcript sitting there ready to go, why Obama asked her to get it, why she did so immediately, and why she then proceeded to debate Romney. It’s not up to us or the Wall Street Journal to think up apologies and excuses on her behalf.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 1:31 pm
Go for the simple explanation. That is, they set it up in advance together.
The complicated explanation is really too complicated and involves lots of what-ifs.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 1:33 pm
John Williams

In your invention how do you explain the Kenyan calling out to the fat porker to go to the transcript and the porker obediently shuffles around papers suggesting she had a transcript there.

How did the Kenyan know she had it at at her fingertip?

JC

21 Oct 12 at 1:34 pm
Snap DD.

Howver you’re far less polite than me of course.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 1:36 pm
She had the exact transcript he asked for, at the moment he asked. She then waved it around and, using it as evidence, debated Romney on Obama’s behalf.

Of course it was going to come up, it was a major issue and the GOP was obviously aching to trap Obama in a gotcha. Why wouldn’t she have a list of facts at her disposal to fact check in real time? You could see the crowd approved of her doing it. Should be more of it, in fact.

It would be great, actually, if moderators in future distributed the list of facts they have written down to both candidates, to establish the reality being debated. Otherwise you’ll get situations like this, where the right accuse everyone else of collaborating to witness reality which, as Colbert reminds us, has a well-known liberal bias.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 1:45 pm
Snap DD.

Howver you’re far more intelligent than me of course.

FTFY, JC.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 1:45 pm
The most pertinent facts were that Obama embarked on a failed illegal war in Libya that ended with terrorists running rampage; that he outsourced security in Benghazi to locals; that he refused requests for bolstered security; that he flew to Vegas for a party as the bodies were being scraped off the rubble; that he blamed it all on YouTube.

Worst president in American history.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 1:49 pm
Why wouldn’t she have a list of facts at her disposal to fact check in real time?

Because she’s the moderator, not the adjudicator and not there to argue on behalf of one against the other. BTW, why didn’t she fact check all the points? Oh, she’s not there to do that.

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 1:52 pm
You could see the crowd approved of her doing it.

What seemed on the night to be spontaneous applause was in fact Michelle Obama clapping furiously, trying to trigger a crowd reaction. This was breach of the rules (no clapping), and it’s curious that she chose that very moment to clap, since she was actually applauding the moderator, not her husband.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 1:59 pm
Fatboy

You still haven’t explained how the Kenyan and the lard tub were able to sync so perfectly.

You’re just pathetically stupid.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 2:00 pm
You could see the crowd approved of her doing it.

The crowd applauded at this point because they were led to applaud by Michelle Obama, breaking one of the rules agreed to in the debate. But why should we expect the left to abide by the niceties? Whatever it takes is the universal credo of progressives.

Cold-Hands

21 Oct 12 at 2:01 pm
It seems that Chris Stevens may have been involved in transferring arms to the Syrian jihadis, if so no big loss but sad for the three that were with him. It also raises the question of which group knocked him off.

Chris M

21 Oct 12 at 2:02 pm
It would be great if she didn’t lie and take sides you ignorant spoon mOron. She’s been caught, he’s been caught so why pretend otherwise?

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 2:04 pm
As soon as Obama mentions “Rose garden” Crowley’s fingers automatically head for the papers and she starts fingering them, like she was too keen. I kept wondering why as I watched, what’s so important about those papers. Then it all clicks in to place. It was a setup, and they were both in on it.

ad

21 Oct 12 at 2:05 pm
Of course it was going to come up, it was a major issue and the GOP was obviously aching to trap Obama in a gotcha.

And of course the kenyan knew by guessing that lard tub had a copy with her, right?

That’s your explanation. In fact Kate’s suggestion is a conspiracy theory, right?

This what you’re thinking fatboy?

JC

21 Oct 12 at 2:06 pm
And what’s with the title of the YouTube clip: “Barack Obama catches Mitt Romney Lie on Libya”? WTF?

Cold-Hands

21 Oct 12 at 2:09 pm
You could see the crowd approved of her doing it.

Yeah the good old “undecideds”, that crowd.

And the definition of undecided is a 2008 Bambi voter who’s intelligent enough to have buyers remorse, but can’t bring themselves to vote republican. That’s why “the crowd approved”. Crowley gave them a thin reed to latch on to. (yeah those repubs are bad after all)

Tell us monty, why did Crowley say she was wrong about her “fact check” almost immediately after the debate ?

Keith

21 Oct 12 at 2:11 pm
JOE BIDEN CATCHES MAN OUT IN A LIE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 2:13 pm
conspiracy theory

I think the collectivists have a new meaning for this phrase too. Anyone who believes the general public may not be getting the true story is now, it seems, a conspiracy theorist.

Ellen of Tasmania

21 Oct 12 at 2:24 pm
“Obumma did not call the Benghazi attack an ‘act of terror’ ”

That’s weird, because in a statement titled ‘Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya’, Obama said:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

The next day in Colorado, he said:

Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week — we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. … So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.

Later that day, he said:

As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.

So you are, of course, utterly wrong.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 2:25 pm
New York Times:

In a statement released Wednesday morning, President Obama called the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which led to the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador, and three other Americans “outrageous.” The attack apparently began as a reaction by an angry mob to a YouTube video denouncing Islam’s founding prophet.

“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants,” Mr. Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

All lies.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 2:34 pm
So you are, of course, utterly wrong.

No I’m not.

I’m 100% correct.

And Jarrah proves yet again what a thoroughly ignorant moron he is.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 2:42 pm
So you are, of course, utterly wrong.

An act of terror is pre-meditated. He spent the next two weeks running around saying it was crowd violence in reaction to the youtube video, which could not have been pre-meditated.

Also, nowhere in those remarks you quote does he state that the attack was an act of terror.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 2:48 pm
Rabz 18 Oct 12 at 7:51 am

On benghayzee, why is this still even being argued about, FFS?

At the time of the attack, obongo called it “a spontaneous demonstration by angry libyan village people”, blamed it on a tacky youtube video and then flew off to Vegas.

It took the vile cowards a full fortnight to own up to the fact that it was a well planned terrorist attack that resulted in four Americans, including the Ambassador, ending up dead – an attack that took place solely because of the staggering ineptitude of the obongo administration.

Rabz

21 Oct 12 at 2:50 pm
Jarrah, you are being too generous. Subsequent events seem to confirm that, in using the words ‘act of terror’, Obama did not mean a specific, planned terrorist attack. Particularly one for which there was prior warning, with requested security upgrade denied.

Biota

21 Oct 12 at 2:50 pm
Jarrah, let me spell it out for you, since you don’t seem to get it.

1. they knew it was a pre-planned terrorist attack.

2. even so, they decided to lie about it and promote the fiction that it was just a riot that got out of control.

3. but remember 1 – they knew they were lying, so they dropped a couple of hand-wavy references to “acts of terror” in order to have plausible cover down the track.

4. the press and everyone else failed to notice that little easter egg; everyone totally chased the “riot about youtube” story.

5. when the truth came out, Obama says ‘read the transcript’ and, what do you know? He made a vague reference to acts of terror toward the end.

6. plausible deniability achieved.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 2:55 pm
The most pertinent facts were that Obama embarked on a failed illegal war in Libya

Irony is a dish served best by those who’ve no notion they be a dishin’ it out.

Jarrah demonstrates again that he is just a Google-user leftist fuckwit with offensively poor judgment

Yet he’s taken seriously by the chief of this blog in a way you don’t appear to be.

I’ve downloaded the transcript but haven’t watched the second debate yet. It’s interesting how we always miss the tradition of fair and unbiased media when partisanship serves the other side.

How is Romney different from Obama, apart from the assertion of competence that is. His position is neoconservative as is Obama’s really. There are US citizens who endorse a more traditional policy:

1) “a prompt withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, even faster than the Obama administration’s alleged commitment to have U.S. forces out of that country in 2014″;

Which can’t happen because they’ll over-run Pakistan and Pakistan has nukes.

2) “a repudiation of nation building as a U.S. foreign policy goal”;

Well you can’t build a nation, failed ex[periment #1 of the 21st century.

3) “a complete reassessment of Washington’s overgrown network of formal and informal security commitments around the world”;

Good idea. Whoever tries to do it will probably get shot.

4) “a willingness to cut military spending.”

What?! Then there’ll be nothing left of Keynes’ American legacy.

Adrien

21 Oct 12 at 2:59 pm
“…a spontaneous demonstration by angry libyan village people…”

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 3:00 pm
Because she’s the moderator, not the adjudicator and not there to argue on behalf of one against the other. BTW, why didn’t she fact check all the points? Oh, she’s not there to do that.

The public have been crying out for journalists to act as fact checkers for the dumb things politicians say, and journos have been fulfilling that need more and more.

A moderator should not let a deliberate lie spoken directly at her like the one Romney uttered go past unchecked if she is at all professional. She knew Romney was lying, Romney said the lie straight to her face, what is she supposed to do, sit there and nod? That would have looked like she had collaborated with Romney. No, she knew the truth, and she spoke it.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 3:01 pm
Irony is a dish served best by those who’ve no notion they be a dishin’ it out.

Right. The irony being that BARACK OBAMA embarked on an illegal failed war that installed terrorists in positions of near-political-power.

A further irony: no lefties marching in the streets about it.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 3:02 pm
You could see the crowd approved of her doing it. Should be more of it, in fact.

that certainly made it well worthwhile. Don’t bother that she lied and it was a setup.

Are you pulling cones? Might explain your comments but it won’t get that weight off

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 3:02 pm
She knew Romney was lying, Romney said the lie straight to her face,

We know monty is lying.

CNN anchor and debate moderator Candy Crowley joined CNN’s panel after the debate to discuss a moment where she corrected Mitt Romney after he claimed that President Barack Obama had refused to characterize the attack in Libya an act of terror for 14 days. Crowley said that Romney’s was “right” in that the Obama administration spent weeks refusing to say that the attack was terrorism, but she thought at the time that “he picked the wrong word.”

“I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”

“Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

WTF is a moderator doing arguing with a debate participant? So Romney had to debate Obama AND Crowley?

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 3:06 pm
1. Obumma is a neo-conservative according to Adrien.

2. Adrien is a fuckwit.

First order logic.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 3:07 pm
lol, CL!

Rabz

21 Oct 12 at 3:07 pm
WTF is a moderator doing arguing with a debate participant? So Romney had to debate Obama AND Crowley?

Crowley was telling the truth. Romney had to debate Obama AND the truth.

m0nty

21 Oct 12 at 3:08 pm
The public have been crying out for journalists to act as fact checkers for the dumb things politicians say, and journos have been fulfilling that need more and more.

What, in debates? Imagine a “moderator” fact checking each point and arguing over the point with the debate participant? Oh yeah, that’s called an interview these days.

Poor monty…

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 3:09 pm
Obama AND the truth

have never found each other.

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 3:11 pm
Steve Kates,

Please keep putting up posts like this because that will help me stay away from this place.

And here’s some advice: stop taking those drugs.

Dead Soul

21 Oct 12 at 3:11 pm
I for one am grateful that Monty has looked into this whole issue.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 3:12 pm
… had to debate Obongo AND the truth

The former being entirely exclusive of the latter…

Rabz

21 Oct 12 at 3:12 pm
Gab!

Rabz

21 Oct 12 at 3:13 pm
Crikey Munty you must need a sugar hit, or something harder!

Biota

21 Oct 12 at 3:18 pm
First order logic.

No. More like a lumpen-lowbrow grunt.

Obama himself is not a neoconservative by conviction but his policies… Well, don’t take my word for it:

Since taking office, Obama has kept faith with the process that his predecessor set in motion, building upon President Bush’s success. (When applied to Iraq, “success” has become a notably elastic term, easily accommodating bombs that detonate in Iraqi cities and insurgent assaults directed at Iraqi forces and government installations.)

The notion that there’s a big difference between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy is spurious. The neoconservative influence was no great departure. It was described by the above writer as ‘More still.’

Only much more obvious and costly.

Neither Bush/Cheney nor Rumsfeld were neoconservatives by conviction. Their agenda coincided with the Wolfowitz crew for a while that’s all.

Adrien

21 Oct 12 at 3:33 pm
The irony being that BARACK OBAMA embarked on an illegal failed war that installed terrorists in positions of near-political-power.

What irony CL? Do you know what irony is?

Adrien

21 Oct 12 at 3:35 pm
Crowley was telling the truth

only if you are a mOron

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 3:43 pm
It’s only ironic if you think that Bush fought an illegal and failed war. But you don’t think that. So where’s the irony?

Adrien

21 Oct 12 at 3:45 pm
Obama himself is not a neoconservative by conviction but his policies… Well, don’t take my word for it

LOL

Perennial twit and moron, Adrien links to the liberal leftist magazine article in Aug 2010 to support his assertion that Obumma is a neo-conservative.

At the time real neo-conservatives were going apoplectic at the thought that Obumma was going to exit Iraq prematurely.

They were right and Obumma was wrong.

And Iran is enjoying the consequences of free airspace over Iraq.

The article Adrien was linking to essentially said Obumma was right to oppose both Bush’s surge and indeed the Iraqi invasion itself.

Adrien is always a moron; is always a twit; is always wrong.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 3:45 pm
What is interesting is in all the cheering for their team none of the lefties on the thread can:

1. Deny Obama lied his arse off
2. Deny the moderator facilitated that lie and overstepped her assigned role.

It is easy to win a debate if you make crap up & have the moderator assist you.

That type does undermine the message with the broader community and is reflected in the polls after the debate and since that time.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 3:46 pm
Did the President call it an “act of terror”? Judge for yourselves:
Link to Obama’s remarks in the Rose Garden the next day (12 Sep 2012)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Peter Amos

21 Oct 12 at 3:49 pm
That’s great Adrien, but neither George HW Bush or George W Bush are fighting this election.

If you want to see fragrant bulls**t told by a US President to get the US into war.

The Democrat Party and their lies over the Gulf of Tonkin tops everything.

PS: Once Assad falls and the Syria chemical weapons program gets investigated we’ll see if Bush/Howard/Blair really were telling the truth.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 3:49 pm
So we can officially call you LiarM0nty.

Thanks for sorting that out.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 3:51 pm
“Also, nowhere in those remarks you quote does he state that the attack was an act of terror.”

So in remarks specifically about the attack, his reference to acts of terror was some random statement about generalities entirely unconnected with the subject of his statement? No, I don’t think so.

“2. even so, they decided to lie about it and promote the fiction that it was just a riot that got out of control.”

Well, there were riots that got out of control in various places that day. There were protests in Libya. Perhaps you are referring to statements about those events?

“they knew they were lying, so they dropped a couple of hand-wavy references to “acts of terror” in order to have plausible cover down the track.”

This is simply bizarre. What possible advantage is there to this strategy?

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 3:51 pm
That’s not fair Token.

Twit twins Jarrah and Adrien deny that Obumma lied and further deny that Crowley facilitated the lie.

They think she facilitated the truth.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 3:51 pm
“the moderator facilitated that lie ”

Romney said Obama didn’t call the attack an act of terror, Obama said he did. The transcript proves he did. So the moderator facilitated the truth.

If you want to make the case that debate moderators shouldn’t confirm the truth (or otherwise) of participants’ statements, that’s fair enough, and I happen to agree. That isn’t their role.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 3:58 pm
Adrien links to the liberal leftist magazine article in Aug 2010 to support his assertion that Obumma is a neo-conservative.

The writer is a conservative. He started writing for the left-wing press after Dubya came in. He was a massive critic of Clinton when he was in and wrote for the Weekly Standard who won;t publish him now because he thinks the Iraq and Afghanistan bogus.

That’s great Adrien, but neither George HW Bush or George W Bush are fighting this election.

So what? Has Romney anything different to offer? Serious doubts.

I haven’t made any comment as to Obama’s sincerity or Crowley’s partisan adjudication. I haven’t watched the debate or read the transcript either. I have however expressed the view previously that the a good chunk of the media are barracking for Obama shamelessly.

Adrien

21 Oct 12 at 4:00 pm
Obumma and his staff then spend the next 13 days pretending it was a spontaneous uprising because of a video you dishonest shit

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 4:05 pm
Wrong again Jarrah.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 4:05 pm
Adrien if we can’t hold Obama for Clintons lies which lead to him being impeached, why should Romney have to be accountable for Bush’s decision?

You really aren’t making any sense.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 4:08 pm
Prove it, Token. Otherwise you’re just trolling.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 4:08 pm
JamesK, Jarrah is up to his usual dishonest tricks.

At no stage can he prove Obama stated Benghazi was an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech.

It’s the typically dodgy crap from him.

As he’s been called out he’ll either disappear for the rest of the day or go full dung throwing Howler Monkey.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 4:12 pm
Prove it dung throwing howler monkey.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 4:13 pm
So in remarks specifically about the attack, his reference to acts of terror was some random statement about generalities entirely unconnected with the subject of his statement? No, I don’t think so.

Oh I totally agree it was put in there for a reason, but the reason is not, as you naively think, that he was informing the world that the Benghazi attack was pre-meditated terrorism. He wasn’t. No news service interpreted it that way at the time. And if he was, he contradicted it anyway by claiming it was a riot about a youtube video.

The reason, as I said above, is that it was an easter egg buried in the text that they could revisit later, all the while explicitly making statements that contradicted the “terrorism” account.

Romney said Obama didn’t call the attack an act of terror, Obama said he did. The transcript proves he did. So the moderator facilitated the truth.

No he did not. Anyway, either it was an act of terror or it was a spontaneous riot. It cannot be both. Obama said it was a riot about youtube. At best, being extremely generous, he contradicted himself.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 4:30 pm
To reiterate, no news service and no journalist interpreted the Rose Garden speech as saying that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.

At the time, not a single person thought he was saying that.

Go ahead. Please refute. Find a single instance, a report anywhere that interpreted the Rose Garden speech in that way.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 4:32 pm
“act of terror”
Gee, it’s a pity the Macquarie dictionary doesn’t have a definition.

What about “moment of terror” – this kind of phrase shows up in news reports to do with crime, accidents and natural disasters. It doesn’t mean however, that terrorists were involved, or were the cause.

Yes, terrorists can cause terror too (maybe that’s why they’re called terrorists).

Similarly an “act of terror” could be perpetrated by criminals, terrorists, or the jerk down the street.

Hence a deliberate ambiguity was created to enable sufficient time to ascertain the facts. That might have been okay for the first few hours, until Obama found out what had actually happened and informed the nation.
From then on he had no excuse to continue in a deliberate ambiguity. Yet, for two weeks there was endless parade of Administration and White House officials continuing in the act of terror meme. It was all about some pathetic video, yet the actual nature of the attack was fully known.
Obama could have amended his narrative at any time, but chose not to. His motivation could have been that he didn’t want to look like he was now agreeing with Romney’s first statement. It may have been that he thought if he stopped blaming the video, then even more Pakistanis might decide to kill each other, who knows ? But what we do know is Obama decided to suppress the facts pertaining to Benghazi almost as soon as he knew them. He decided to continue to retail a story he knew to false. That is called lying.

Keith

21 Oct 12 at 4:35 pm
“they knew they were lying, so they dropped a couple of hand-wavy references to “acts of terror” in order to have plausible cover down the track.”

This is simply bizarre. What possible advantage is there to this strategy?

Jarrah, you are officially a leftwing propagandist like Dogshit, who does it by claiming to be a “conservative”, while you use the cover of a “libertarian”. I despise people who pretend to be what they’re not.

You’re just another liar for the leftwing cause, which is constantly trying to hide from the middle class what they’re actually doing, what they’re trying to do and what they want to do. Honed by decades in opposition, which is their natural home, leftwing governments must lie to get elected and to maintain public support. Ultimately, leftwing governments get what is coming to them because they treat the public like idiots. They think lying is acceptable because everything they do is for the greater good. This is the greatest arrogance and contempt that it is possible to have in politics. All governments that lie as a default strategy can’t last. That is why Red Ted in Victoria has no future. Essentially, he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He is pretending to be what he isn’t.

That is why Romney is ahead; Obama is lying to the US public and corrupt public institutions like the media are lying on his behalf. You are lying on his behalf because you consider it your mission to help save leftwing administrations wherever they are. Because that is just what leftwing missionaries do.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 4:38 pm
This is simply bizarre. What possible advantage is there to this strategy?

They didn’t want to have a terrorist attack on the USA so close to a presidential election.

It’s that simple.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 4:40 pm
Adrien if we can’t hold Obama for Clintons lies which lead to him being impeached, why should Romney have to be accountable for Bush’s decision?

You can’t hold anyone accountable for acts that are the responsibility of someone else.

You really aren’t making any sense.

Sure I am. You’re just not reading what I write. Are you hallucinating?

Adrien

21 Oct 12 at 4:42 pm
Language Log examines the “acts of terror” phrase.

They conclude:

Now, all that said, it is true that the president did create a very large separation between the expression “acts of terror” and the discourse-salient acts. Contrast this, for example, with an alternative phrasing he could have used, like “An act of terror such as this one will never…”, which would have unequivocally tagged the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

My conclusion is that on the linguistic merits, “this attack in Benghazi” was, in fact, characterized by Obama as being in the set, “acts of terror”. In plain English, Crowley was right and Obama did, in fact, describe the attack in the Rose Garden speech as an act of terror.

But at the same time, his speech was undeniably very, very carefully crafted. If this attack had turned out not to be an act of terror, nobody could ever wave the transcript in front of the cameras accusing him of having gotten it wrong. At least, not without consulting their friendly neighborhood linguist.

ar

21 Oct 12 at 4:44 pm
a moderator is not there to decide who is most truthful. that is up to the voters.

Jim Rose

21 Oct 12 at 4:45 pm
“They didn’t want to have a terrorist attack on the USA so close to a presidential election.”

That’s crazy. Terrorist attacks are a big opportunity for a cynical leader to rally the nation around him or her. The more you downplay it, the less political benefit there is.

“At no stage can he prove Obama stated Benghazi was an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech.”

Apparently you’re illiterate. It’s right there in black and white. I can’t help you more than that.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 4:51 pm
Adrien-the-twit:

The writer is a conservative.

Wikipedia: Andrew Bacevich

He has been “a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure.”[1] In March 2007, he described George W. Bush’s endorsement of such “preventive wars” as “immoral, illicit, and imprudent.” His son, also an Army officer, died fighting in the Iraq War in May 2007.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 4:53 pm
“Anyway, either it was an act of terror or it was a spontaneous riot. It cannot be both.”

Of course you can have both. An act of terror arising out of a spontaneous riot, or a riot orchestrated to disguise the opening moves of an act of terror, or some people rioting and others making a terrorist attack.

Perhaps some of your confusion arises from a belief that all Libyans are acting with one mind?

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 4:54 pm
“he described George W. Bush’s endorsement of such “preventive wars” as “immoral, illicit, and imprudent.””

Sounds like a conservative to me.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 4:55 pm
“no news service and no journalist interpreted the Rose Garden speech as saying that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.”

This is a specious argument. Observe:

No news service and no journalist interpreted the Rose Garden speech as saying that the Benghazi attack was not a terrorist attack.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 4:57 pm
Sounds like a conservative to me.

LOL

Jarrah never ties of his serial slapdash inanities.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 4:58 pm
tires

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 4:59 pm
Liberal left newspaer The Washington Post’s ‘Fact-Checker’ Glenn Kessler:

From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— President Obama, Rose Garden statement, Sept. 12

(Note: we added this statement to the timeline after Josh Gerstein of Politico asserted that the phrasing “acts of terror” showed Obama acknowledged “terrorism” was behind the attack. From our many years of covering diplomacy we would say there is a world of difference, but readers can draw their own conclusions.)

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 5:04 pm
So in remarks specifically about the attack, his reference to acts of terror was some random statement about generalities entirely unconnected with the subject of his statement? No, I don’t think so.

It’s ambiguous whether the reference to “acts of terror” refers specifically to the attack in Benghazi. The first reference is general, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” So is the second, “To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished”, and the third, “No act of terror will dim the light of the values”. Each of the statements is simply designed to show resolve, and none refer specifically to the attack in Benghazi. Had Obama referred to a coordinated attack, rather than to a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, the above references could have easily been interpreted as suggesting that the event was a terrorist attack, but not when they continually referred to spontaneous demonstrations inspired by a youtube video, and then generally to acts of terror. Violent riots are simply not terrorists attacks.

All of this suggests to me the following, firstly, they knew this was a coordinated attack from the beginning; secondly, the knew that they were probably reckless or negligent in adequately protecting their staff; and thirdly, they knew that admitting this was a terrorist attack, planned and executed on 11th anniversary of 9/11, would not play well with a Presidential election occurring within 2 months. So they concocted the following media strategy: firstly, deny that it was a coordinated attack and argue that it was a spontaneous demonstration inspired by an anti-Islamic youtube clip; secondly, refer generally to acts of terror and our resolve to bring the demonstrators involved to justice, but do not admit specifically that this was a coordinated attack planned and executed by a terrorist group using AGs, RPGs and mortars; and, lastly, as the truth seeps through a fortnight or so will have passed and the issue will have fallen from the front page and will largely be recalled only by a small portion of the public. Job done.

dover_beach

21 Oct 12 at 5:11 pm
a moderator is not there to decide who is most truthful. that is up to the voters.

Quite so.

They’re also not there to enter the debate.

Keith

21 Oct 12 at 5:11 pm
The very beginning of George Bush’s address to the nation after 911 :

Good evening.

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.

See, when you mean terrorist, you say terrorist.

Keith

21 Oct 12 at 5:19 pm
Why is there any argument if the administration referred to it as an act of terror?

Oh yea that’s right, the reason is that they blamed the attack on a video that no one was even aware of in an attempt to deceive the voters because an AQ attack coupled with appalling security made them appear to be total ncompetents.

The act of terror the Kenyan referred to wasn’t the planned attack hat occurred.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is a lying deceitful turd.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 5:22 pm
They ran around for a fortnight pretending it was something that they knew it was not.

These two clowns here keep pretending that they didn’t. It must hurt to have their wonderful left unravel.

I suppose it demonstrates that the left have to lie, as in it comes naturally, and lie constantly. They truly are a repulsive lot.

Eat some more chips m0ron

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 5:30 pm
Romney looks like shit

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 5:35 pm
I wonder if the bad Mohammed video was a planned setup to provide cover for the Benghazi attack. Timing is suspect. And no I’m not Bird!

Biota

21 Oct 12 at 5:38 pm
Romney is tripping over his bootlaces on details (pathetic details)..and he looks weak as weak and I know who looks like the liar and it isnt Obama. Its Romney who is a liar.
But then they both are probably liars. This is the battle of the liars on both sides (does anyone else get that?)

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 5:41 pm
“Each of the statements is simply designed to show resolve, and none refer specifically to the attack in Benghazi.”

So you think he made statements designed to show resolve in the fact of “acts of terror” for no reason? That it was just a coincidence he made them in remarks solely about the attacks, and subsequently in campaigning immediately after mentioning the attacks?

It’s just bizarre the mental contortions on display here by otherwise reasonable people like dd and dover.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 5:41 pm
Yes, great points DB.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 5:44 pm
They ran around for a fortnight pretending it was something that they knew it was not.

Yes, I wonder why they kept insisting it was all due to a random protest sparked by a youtube trailer? Not much talk of “terrorism” regards the Benghazi attack from the WH over those two weeks. I think this is more the interesting point rather than whether Obama meant terrorism attack on Benghazi or not. Those two weeks of obfuscation, that’s what people should be asking about. Especially that they do so this close to the presidential election.

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 5:46 pm
That’s crazy. Terrorist attacks are a big opportunity for a cynical leader to rally the nation around him or her. The more you downplay it, the less political benefit there is.

Not if your prime narrative is “I gave the orders that killed Osama and anwar, and so AQ is on the run”.

You’re welcome.

Abu Chowdah

21 Oct 12 at 5:47 pm
Apparently you’re illiterate. It’s right there in black and white. I can’t help you more than that.

Prove the statement is there.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 5:51 pm
So you think he made statements designed to show resolve in the fact of “acts of terror” for no reason?

The speech was given the day after the anniversary of 9/11, so referring to “acts of terror” was not incongruous. Jarrah, in all honesty, your line of argument is strange. There is no such thing as a spontaneous terrorist attack; that is why his reference to “acts of terror” was both cunning and duplicitous.

dover_beach

21 Oct 12 at 5:56 pm
The reason is, Obumma killed Ossama, see that means the Terrorists are dead and USA can pull out of the war : If, OTOH terrorists are torturing and killing diplomats and staff and still attacking, does that mean killing Osamma by Obumma was a waste fo time and the war is, in fact, not over? If so why are we (USA) pulling out?

Helen Armstrong

21 Oct 12 at 5:56 pm
Either way, Obumma is a liar.

Helen Armstrong

21 Oct 12 at 5:57 pm
From our many years of covering diplomacy we would say there is a world of difference, but readers can draw their own conclusions.

As the WaPo makes clear. Jarrah can throw as many ad homs as his tiny brain allows, but he can’t prove Obama called the Benghazi attack an Act of Terror in the Rose Garden speech.

Why does Jarrah need to keep proving he is fundamentally dishonest?

Tiny hits the nub of the issue on the head.

I suppose it demonstrates that the left have to lie, as in it comes naturally, and lie constantly. They truly are a repulsive lot.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 6:00 pm
Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)

The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.

Notice Romney cancelled all weekend appearances to prepare for Monday’s debate? In the business elite, you can’t afford to fuck up when there is big money on the line. That is how Romney prepares. I believe that will prove decisive on Monday and on November 6.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 6:03 pm
First order logic

Propositional I think …

But otherwise, please keep this thread going. I’ve read every message so far, and can’t contribute anything at all. But great fun.

PSC

21 Oct 12 at 6:08 pm
It’s just bizarre the mental contortions on display here by otherwise reasonable people like dd and dover

FFS!

I think….. I think Jarrah actually sees himself as a ‘reasonable’ person!

Jarrah needs to confront reality.

He’s not reasonable; he’s more the inane leftist twit.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 6:12 pm
Let’s look at Obama’s Rose Garden speech from another angle. Here is the key part:

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others…

Now here is White House spokesman Carney the very next day, clearly pointing out that the White House believed the violence was due to the movie. And lo and behold the language is very similar to Obama’s from the day before:

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

Obama was clearly suggesting that the Benghazi attack was due to the video.

jupes

21 Oct 12 at 6:14 pm
Jarrah
You’ve stumbled into a fifth dimension, where black is white, up is down, and logic a foreign concept.
If the facts don’t suit the narrative, they’re massaged until they do.
It looks bizarre if you’re rational.

1735099

21 Oct 12 at 6:17 pm
I have observed that the left generally see and express in black and white (and no, that is not a racist comment) and thus have difficulty with allusion. IMO Obama alluded to acts of terror, he didn’t identify a specific act as an act perpetrated by terrorists. This is clearly supported by the subsequent obfuscating.

Biota

21 Oct 12 at 6:17 pm
That’s crazy. Terrorist attacks are a big opportunity for a cynical leader to rally the nation around him or her. The more you downplay it, the less political benefit there is.

Well you and I can certainly think that, but Obama and his people didn’t. Otherwise, what was the point of promulgating the youtube distraction, when they knew it was pre-planned?

I honestly don’t know. Maybe Obama thought it might show that he was weak or something. Maybe, because they had no security at the compound and had refused requests for security, they were in the frame. Stevens certainly knew something was brewing and was worried and asking for more security.

Obama and his adminstration pushed the “youtube video riot” line when they knew it was a coordinated, planned attack. We can speculate as to why they thought it would be damaging for them, but clearly they thought it would be, somehow or other.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 6:19 pm
“The speech was given the day after the anniversary of 9/11, so referring to “acts of terror” was not incongruous.”

It was a speech ABOUT the Benghazi attacks, FFS.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 6:20 pm
LOL

Spudpeeler-the-leftist is propping up to Jarrah-the-leftist.

Twit leftist twins.

Where’s terror-triplet Adrien?

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 6:23 pm
It was a speech ABOUT the Benghazi attacks, FFS.

Then why did he mention religion?

jupes

21 Oct 12 at 6:23 pm
“Jarrah can throw as many ad homs”

Name one, you toothless drunk.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 6:25 pm
Suave magni maro turbantibus aequora ventis
e terra magnum alterius spectare laborem;
non quia vexari quemquamst jucunda voluptas,
sed quibus ipse malis careas quia cernere suave est.

The translation on wiki is pretty good:

Pleasant it is, when over a great sea the winds trouble the waters, to gaze from shore upon another’s tribulation: not because any man’s troubles are a delectable joy, but because to perceive from what ills you are free yourself is pleasant.

PSC

21 Oct 12 at 6:28 pm
Obumma Rose Garden 9/12 remarks:

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for

The “acts of terror” referred to the original 9/11 attacks and the heroic deaths since in Bush’s ‘war on terror’

As I wrote earlier in my first comment:

Obumma did not call the Benghazi attack an ‘act of terror’ and Obumma’s “acts of terror ” reference in the Rose Garden address to attacks on the US since 2001 clearly did not include Benghazi among pre-planned terrorist acts except arguably in the most elliptical sense in which an anti-US mob demonstration could be included as one of Obumma’s “acts of terror”

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 6:28 pm
“Otherwise, what was the point of promulgating the youtube distraction, when they knew it was pre-planned?”

Incompetence? Right hand not knowing what the left, etc? Figuring out the complications of the CIA operation next to the consulate? Not wanting to be seen to take political advantage when they’d just accused Romney of doing just that? There are plenty of rational explanations short of your bizarre theory.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 6:29 pm
“The “acts of terror” referred to the original 9/11 attacks”

No. First he mentions 9/11, and then he mentions Benghazi. If anything, he’s saying they are both acts of terror. There is no possible way you right-wing loonies can spin his Rose Garden remarks so that Benghazi is “elliptical” or peripheral.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 6:31 pm
If anything, he’s saying they are both acts of terror.

I’ll say it again. not a single person alive thought he was declaring that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack at the time. No journalist, no newspaper, nothing. You can parse it all you like, but there is abundant evidence for the plain interpretation on the record. You’re simply denying the overwhelming evidence (unless you can find a single news source that backs you up)

…And when it emerged that it was a terrorist attack days later, the news agencies all broke it as a new development in the news story.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 6:35 pm
you right-wing loonies

Jarrah finally says something he really means.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 6:36 pm
Washington Times: Obama’s incorrect ‘acts of terror’ assertions
President wants credit for what he didn’t say

Tuesday night’s fierce argument during the presidential debate over Mr. Obama’s characterization of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is more than a matter of interpretation. Mr. Obama claimed that he named it an “act of terror” the day after the incident, on Sept. 12, 2012. Mitt Romney accused him of denying the nature of the attack and hiding for 14 days behind dubious claims that an internet video posted in June was responsible for inciting a spontaneous riot.

While Mr. Obama used the words “acts of terror” in his Sept. 12 speech, he did not say the Benghazi attack was such an act. He strains credulity in claiming that this generic phrase established the Libya event as a terrorist attack on the United States. He used the phrase only once in his 801-word address in the Rose Garden, and then as a generality. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for…We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act,” he said. Missing from the speech were the words “terrorist,” “premeditated,” or “planned” in reference to what we know was an attack by extremists with links to Al Qaeda. Intelligence officials told the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake that the U.S. knew that it was planned by al Qaeda affiliates within 24 hours.

Presidential equivocation in the face of terrorist aggression is a trait unique to Mr. Obama. On Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush gave a statement less than an hour after the first plane hit the North Tower. He told the country, “Today we’ve had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country…Terrorism against our nation will not stand.” The same day that the USS Cole was attacked by Al Qaeda in 2000, President Bill Clinton was prompt and forthright. “[A]n explosion claimed the lives of at least four sailors on one of our naval vessels, the USS Cole, this morning. … If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act.”

One of the first tasks presidential speechwriters undertake when drafting remarks is to read previous speeches on the topic. Mr. Obama’s writers would have known exactly what his predecessors said when explaining details surrounding Al Qaeda attacks to the nation. This means the departure from precedent in Mr. Obama’s language was intentional. Mr. Obama’s writers knew what they were not saying. It’s a reflection of a political calculation that has produced the policy under this administration to avoid talking about terrorists or what Mr. Bush termed the “war on terror.” Applied in this case, however, it made the president look behindhand.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 6:36 pm
Jarrah, why come here when you obviously detest it?

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 6:48 pm
J.P. Freire, American Spectator: Acts of Terror, etc.

One of the weirder exchanges tonight? The discussion over whether Obama called the attack on the Benghazi consulate an “act of terror.” Candy Crowley jumped in to defend Obama (oddly) and fact-check Romney, to say that Obama did, in fact, call it one…

One problem: He never calls it that. He mentions the extent to which acts of terror will have an impact on American life (not much, apparently), but he never calls out this particular act as an act of terror. And whatever the case, it takes four whole minutes — a lifetime in speechwriter years — to get to that word. Terror.

If you’re going to rebut Romney’s claim that Obama took forever to get to the heart of the matter, don’t cite as your evidence a meandering speech in which Obama mentions terror, in passing, in a way that suggests, implies, or otherwise avoids directly addressing the horror as, in fact, an act of terror.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 6:48 pm
It’s a reflection of a political calculation that has produced the policy under this administration to avoid talking about terrorists or what Mr. Bush termed the “war on terror.”

That’s the reason right there. Obama doesn’t like talking about terrorists or a war on terror, because that’s a George W Bush thing.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 6:53 pm
Alana Goodman, Commentary Magazine Contentions blog:
No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech

Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.

“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12….

Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks……

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

Some may wonder why it even matters. Maybe Obama really was referring to Benghazi as an “act of terror” in the speech, and he just failed to make that clear enough — so what?

Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 6:54 pm
Someone’s argument just fell into an abyss.

dover_beach

21 Oct 12 at 6:54 pm
If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.

Right on target.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 7:00 pm
Keep in mind also that Stevens knew it was coming and tried to get the White House to send him some protection. They refused.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 7:02 pm
At least Jarrah tells it like it is.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:02 pm
It’s just bizarre the mental contortions on display here by otherwise reasonable people like dd and dover.

It’s just routine the mental contortions on display here by ~~otherwise~~ fuckwit ~~people~~ nutters like dd Jarrah and ~~dover~~ Adrien.

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 7:03 pm
Keep in mind also that Stevens knew it was coming and tried to get the White House to send him some protection.

Repeated by cable on the day he died dd

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 7:05 pm
Spudpeeler, you deplorable piece of shit. You accused Kate’s of creating conspiracy theories but when asked to give an explanation to describe the Kenyan’s interaction with the lardball you were nowhere to be seen.

You’re a coward through and through.

JC

21 Oct 12 at 7:05 pm
And just when sanity prevailed another contender appeared. The mentally ill Alice.

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 7:10 pm
=No matter
I dont like either of them so I can say it likiem it is. In the latest debate its romney who looks like a liae
in other words Romney did shit

“However, the most recent releases of five of the six tracking polls show net movement to Obama or away from Romney of between 1 and 4 percentage points compared to results from interviews conducted by each pollster between the first and second presidential debates.”

Doh and Im a dummy and I could see it in the debate – Romney did a shit performance. Obama won this one no matter if anyone says who is lying.

Thats all that counts. The polls.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:11 pm
Someone’s argument just fell into an abyss.

It never arose out of there in the first place.

Jarrah has been wrong since the beginning. He counts on ignorance to win by bluster.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 7:13 pm
Tiny

Its you who live in la la land. Watch the debate you stupid idiot. Its obvious who won.

Doesnt matter what you think should win according to your triba; beliefs dodo.

Its who can be the most convincing and Romney lost spewing out details and splitting hairs. He didnt have a punch line.

Who won, got the best polls doh?

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:14 pm
At least Jarrah tells it like it is.

Alice stands up for everything she likes in the world: e.g. a socialist US administration that considers it worth sacrificing four good men to keep the deranged lunatics of the muslim world onside.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 7:15 pm
Keep in mind also that Stevens knew it was coming and tried to get the White House to send him some protection. They refused.

Disgraceful, isn’t it.

Listen to this interview between Dennis Prager and the head of the committee on Homeland Security.

The key point is the state department confirmed the protection was not limited due to budgetary concerns (i.e. can’t blame congress and resource allocation).

It was an executive decision. The question is how high it goes.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 7:21 pm
Listen Tom you dichead

I just made the comment from mmy view on who won the debate and that wasnt Romney IMHO. I watched it and he lost. The polls on Obama went up. I think thats a measure of who won and who lost.

How you can deduce from that exactly what I prefer by way of a choice between communisma nd capitalism in government (or socialism and centre rightism) is a fucking figment of your imagination you idiot.

I just made the comment on who won the debate from my point of view after watching it and I dont give a fuck about either of them.

You could do with some indepedendent thinking and being able to judge appeal to the masses, and not letting your emotions or your party affiliations get in the way of your rational assessment of the outcome of a debate.

My god so I have to deal with these uncritical stupid fools like Tom?

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:22 pm
I just made the comment from mmy view on who won the debate and that wasnt Romney IMHO. I watched it and he lost. The polls on Obama went up. I think thats a measure of who won and who lost.

That’s a legitimate opinion and you might be right. Some think Romney won, others Obama. We’ve discussed this quite a bit on other threads.

But that’s not the topic of this discussion. Look at the title of Steve’s post: “Crowley and Obama: a premeditated set up.” The topic is whether Romney was set up or not.

dd

21 Oct 12 at 7:26 pm
Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.

That’s the critical point.

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 7:28 pm
Sometimes, I dream 6 impossible things before breakfast.

Helen Armstrong

21 Oct 12 at 7:28 pm
Alice in wonderland

Helen Armstrong

21 Oct 12 at 7:28 pm
dd

It was my opinion. Romney looked like shit. I said it before and Ill say it again. He was waffling around in detail.

Whether he was set up or not – he didnt handle it well did he?

They all try to set each other up and the winner is he who can outtalk the other and be convincing and Romney wasnt.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:33 pm
Mr Romney being setup is a ridiculous conspiracy theory in my opinion.

He won the debate hands down because of his genuineness and economic plans that he clearly outlined.
Mr Obama came across as quite the shifty one on the Bhengazi episode and trust in him would seem to be diminishing. He originally seemed prepared to let H. Clinton take the blame too – not good.
You could see he became quite defensive about that when questioned.

candy

21 Oct 12 at 7:35 pm
Great article in the Weekly Standard with 20 important questions for the Obama admin.

At roughly the same time the president was chatting with Stewart in New York City, another interview was taking place in Benghazi, Libya. The man suspected of organizing the attack on the U.S. consulate there, Ahmed Abu Khattala, “spent two leisurely hours . . . sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio” with a reporter from the New York Times and boasting that he hasn’t even been questioned by investigators from the governments of Libya or the United States. He has not gone into hiding and has no plans to do so. The Times reported that Abu Khattala, a leader of al Qaeda-linked Ansar al Sharia, “expressed a notable absence of remorse over the assault.” According to the story, “witnesses have said they saw him directing other fighters that night,” and both governments believe he was involved. Abu Khattala denied he masterminded the attack but confirmed reports that he was in the compound. Why? He happened to be in the area “to break up a traffic jam,” and after the fighting broke out he entered the -facility because he wanted to help Libyan guards working for the Americans.

We commend Times reporter David Kirkpatrick for getting the interview, but it raises an obvious question. Why is it that, more than a month after the attack, a New York Times reporter can spend two leisurely hours with the alleged mastermind, yet no agent of the U.S. government has ever approached him?

Token

21 Oct 12 at 7:36 pm
Information is coming out about what the White House knew when the President took off to Vegas:

Could U.S. military have helped during Libya attack?

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle…

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa.

“You find a way to make this happen,” Berntsen says. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died.”

…Add to the controversy the fact that the last two Americans didn’t die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 7:39 pm
Oh and dd

was Romney set up? Or is he just looking after a certain class?

I dont know

Maybe you should read this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/10/18/only-the-rich-can-enjoy-mitt-romneys-tax-breaks/

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:40 pm
That’s why Romney went further ahead in polls, Alice, you numpty

Rococo Liberal

21 Oct 12 at 7:40 pm
Numpty Rococco – whatever alternative reality you live in the polls are all saying an uptick to Obama post debate.

Post a link Rocky.

I guess if you fail an exam you can always pretend you passed. Reality is probably better though.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:47 pm
Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators.

This is the quote reminded me of the CBS article I posted above.

Token

21 Oct 12 at 7:48 pm
Mumpty is cute though. I like it.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:48 pm
Have a bad day Alice?

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 7:48 pm
Hey Alice, are you fearful about the proposed floor price of $20/cask for your twice daily goon bags of wine?

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 7:49 pm
Candy is on the right track. Romney wasnt set up. In a debate all is fair in love and war (set ups included) – Romney should roll with the punches and he didnt, at least not this time around. Romney did better earlier before Obama went to debate boot camp.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:51 pm
Fuck off James you unintellectual sad excuse for an idea.

Alice

21 Oct 12 at 7:52 pm
Alice you’re drunk now.

You know that. Right?

JamesK

21 Oct 12 at 7:52 pm
Alice, do our grow your own pot. You can’t be this crazy without some chemical assistance.

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 7:56 pm
No, Tiny, it sounds like cheap white wine.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 8:00 pm
I think your last line is a cracker Steve.

But you look at this and if you see how suspicious it is, I can only think it’s because you want to.

Rex

21 Oct 12 at 8:04 pm
Incompetence? Right hand not knowing what the left, etc? Figuring out the complications of the CIA operation next to the consulate? Not wanting to be seen to take political advantage when they’d just accused Romney of doing just that? There are plenty of rational explanations short of your bizarre theory.

Why not get the opinion from someone with experience in Washington politics?

According to Krauthammer, the Obama administration delayed announcing the news primarily to protect the president’s image on foreign policy.

“They had two reasons to lie,” Krauthammer said. “The first reason was the fact that the Sept. 11 attack occurred a week after they just spent four days in Charlotte dancing on the grave of bin Laden. Remember, this is their single foreign policy achievement. There is none other. Look at Iran Look at Russia. Look at Israel. Look at Syria. Look at the Arab spring. It’s all in collapse. They got one thing to argue, and they sure argued it, where they made the point again and again and again with that ridiculous slogan from Vice President [Biden], ‘bin laden dead, GM alive,’ because what Libya said, what it was proclaiming to the world and the reason the attack was launched in the first place was to say, ‘bin Laden dead, al-Qaida alive.’ That is what has happened as a result of leading from behind in Libya.”

…The second thing is, and I heard from this from liberal colleagues on some of the other shows I’ve done, is, ‘Well, how could they have done this? Why would they be lying? Wouldn’t they know it would come out?’” Krauthammer said. “And the answer is no. They saw what the mainstream media did right after the attack. And you know what they did — they spent three days attacking Mitt Romney for a statement he issued the next day, in which he denounced what the Cairo embassy released, the apologetic statement that was made.”

“So the media went ahead and spent three days ignoring the attack, ignoring the implications and concentrating always on that,” he continued. “So they think they got the media in their pocket. The election is coming up. They simply have to run out the clock, and they’ll be scot-free. They’ll be home free. And that is what they thought. However, it was you and others and Bret Baier and Fox which kept the story alive, because we kept finding out what really happened. And now the mainstream media had been shamed to covering it themselves.”

Token

21 Oct 12 at 8:27 pm
The ultimate Oby……it’s just like life at high school.

“He’s just lazy about presidential duties. He’s an avid golfer, having done so 104 times since taking office. He has set a record for fundraising dinners. And as a fawning biography last month in The New York Times — headlined “The Competitor in Chief” shows — he spends hours training for amateur sports. According to the Times, he’s diligent at playing pool, cooking chili, playing cards, bowling, basketball and even doodling.

The Times wrote this as praise — that Obama wants to be the best at so many things. But for anyone not in Obama’s thrall, it was a terrifying look at how unfocused Obama is on the serious work of being president.

It’s simply too boring for him. He’s never been an executive before — never run a business, a town, anything really, other than running his mouth. But being president is hard.

It’s not just economics that Obama ignores. Foreign policy is a disaster, too. But Obama has skipped more than 50% of his daily national security briefings. Including the morning after the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was ransacked and the U.S. ambassador there was murdered. Perhaps he had been staying up too late the night before — the afternoon of the attack, instead of heading to the White House situation room, he flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

The debates revealed Obama as a lightweight. But they also revealed that for four years, the mainstream media has covered up that fact.” …..Ezra Levant

Alfonso

21 Oct 12 at 8:33 pm
But you look at this and if you see how suspicious it is, I can only think it’s because you want to.

More than half of Democrats believed Bush knew.

C.L.

21 Oct 12 at 8:38 pm
Ah yes, Fox news the harbinger of truthiness

“declaring something an act of terror doesn’t mean you’re declaring it a terrorist attack”

Shall we get the OED to drop into Fox?

Rex

21 Oct 12 at 8:40 pm
Malice

Numpty Rococco – whatever alternative reality you live in the polls are all saying an uptick to Obama post debate.

In the last 24 hours Romney’s odds on Betfair have shortened from 3.25 to 3.0. LOL

Steve of Ferny Hills

21 Oct 12 at 8:47 pm
You do a splendid job, Rex, of concealing the fact that you’re a brainless zombie idiot attempting to be a troll wearing a Che Guavara t-shirt as sole authentication of your credibility.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 8:50 pm
You do a splendid job, Rex, of concealing the fact that you’re a brainless zombie idiot attempting to be a troll wearing a Che Guavara t-shirt as sole authentication of your credibility.

I can help you with that

Rex

21 Oct 12 at 8:53 pm
I didn’t realise you also had a language disability.

Tom

21 Oct 12 at 8:59 pm
Congress investigating Benghazi debacle. Claims that more timely military intervention was feasible, with the possibility that two of those killed might have been saved. Sounds like both Bambi and Clinton froze on the controls.

Also, on the subject of foreign policy, Iran agrees to talk directly to the US about nukes, but after the election. The Iranians are playing for more time.

Keith

21 Oct 12 at 9:04 pm
Sounds like both Bambi and Clinton froze on the controls.

Listen to Obama during the debate last week explaining the 3 steps they took.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again.

And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we’re going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

All were reactive, none proactive. All assume the people were dead, but as we now know 2 of those killed could’ve been saved!

Token

21 Oct 12 at 9:22 pm
“Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators.”

We appear to be forgetting that not only did calling it a Terrorist attack give Obama powers to deal with the situation, it also would have made it a requirement that he do so.

Winston Smith

21 Oct 12 at 9:22 pm
Listen to Obama during the debate last week explaining the 3 steps they took.

Yes and he never actually answered the question:

QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Quite the artful dodger the ol’ Bammy.

Gab

21 Oct 12 at 9:30 pm
[...] am part of the largest (only) conservative, right of centre blog here in Australia and I did my own posting on the Crowley-Obama [...]

A letter sent to Jack Cashill « Law of Markets

21 Oct 12 at 9:35 pm
“Jarrah, why come here when you obviously detest it?”

I don’t detest the Cat. I detest certain commenters, but that’s about it.

Jarrah

21 Oct 12 at 9:50 pm
I dunno. I don’t think winning on a technicality is going to cut it. I think it’s likely to look bad to people who matter, and good only to those who were well and truly in the Obama camp to start with.

Much like “It’s not REALLY a carbon tax”.

wreckage

21 Oct 12 at 11:35 pm
Another rare seagull posting from Rextum. Thanks for playing.

Abu Chowdah

21 Oct 12 at 11:49 pm
I don’t detest the Cat. I detest certain commenters, but that’s about it

Then why carry on like a fuckwit? Fuckwit.

Tiny Dancer

21 Oct 12 at 11:59 pm
I don’t detest the Cat. I detest certain commenters, but that’s about it.

Give Jarrah, a man who hides behind a pseudonym, a chance and he’d act disgustingly and expose our private details to the web like he did with JC.

Token

22 Oct 12 at 7:17 am
“A moderator should not let a deliberate lie spoken directly at her like the one Romney uttered go past unchecked if she is at all professional. She knew Romney was lying, Romney said the lie straight to her face, what is she supposed to do, sit there and nod?”

Except mOnty in this case the MODERATOR WAS WRONG. Went on CNN the same day and admitted so, but of course the damage from the debate was done.

Moderators should not be contradicting candidates speaking the truth. That’s what makes people think there’s something fishy going on

scotty

22 Oct 12 at 10:14 am
Don’t worry about it Scotty.
The MSM has been shitting in its own nest for so long, it’s about to cut off its own supply of Oxygen.
Think of it as unintended consequences.

Winston Smith

22 Oct 12 at 12:05 pm
“Give Jarrah, a man who hides behind a pseudonym”

Irony much?

Jarrah

22 Oct 12 at 12:10 pm
There’s a fair few here who’ve been inoculated against irony. They were raised by those who dream of a world without it.

Adrien

22 Oct 12 at 3:57 pm
Y’know responding to a comment by James K is a lot like swatting a mosquito. It combines major irritation with minor satisfaction at the power that comes of so little effort.

I’m glad you’re able Mr K, to look up a name in Wikipedia and scan to the most convenient of its clauses. But more is beyond you. To understand someone like Bacevich you have to comprehend some matters that are as far from your reach as a pilot’s license is to a fern. Notions like ‘individual reasoning’ come into play. You, who are too witless to recognize your own rhetorical poverty (how many times do you intend to use the word ‘twit’?) would never understand the one who could ask a hard question:

Bacevich’s ideology:

Those events [McCarthy; Cuba; Vietnam] mot only shaped the consciousnesss of successive generations but also divided members of those generations into opposing camps… One group acepted the orthodox interpretation that US policies were necessary to defend the free world from communist aggression, actual or potential. The other group saw the American preoccupation with communism at home and abroad, as unhealthy and probably unnecessary.

By upbrining, education and youthful occupation, I identify with the former group. As a serving military officer, I accepted the view that American power provided the essential check upon those who conspired against freedom… I never saw Fidel or Che, Mao or Ho as agents of liberation and human fulfilment. Nor do I see reason to modify my view on these matters today.

Andrew J Bacevich
2002

Please don’t link to Wikipedia anymore. A little knowledge in the grasp of the mentally invertebrate is a dangerous thing.

Adrien

22 Oct 12 at 4:00 pm
Y’know responding to a comment by James K is a lot like swatting a mosquito.

LOL

That’s woeful.

Adrien confirms he’s a thoroughgoing fuckwit yet again.(Please Adrien do yourself a favour: there is no more need for further confirmation)

The joker Adrien introduces into the thread to imaginatively bolster the stupidity that Obumma is just another neocon like Bush and Romney sez the world is divided into two type of people.

Presumably neocons like Obumma, Bush and Romney and fucktards like such as Adrien and Jarrah.

Ya know that sad clown Bacevich writing for leftist galleries might actually be on to something….

JamesK

22 Oct 12 at 4:33 pm

Catallaxy Files