At the risk…
…of becoming a bloody bore on the topic of Crowley, Obama, the debate, and Benghazi—even more than I may have already done—please bear with me for one more post.
When I took another look at the text of Obama’s Rose Garden speech after Benghazi (I do this tedious stuff so you don’t have to), I noticed the number of times Obama characterized the Benghazi violence in some way. I’ve highlighted every one of them in bold:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
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.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
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. 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.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
You can see that in his speech Obama characterizes the Benghazi violence and/or its perpetrators ten separate times, in an address that is only about 800 words long in its entirety. Each time, he might have chosen to have said “terrorist attacks” or “terrorists” or “terrorism,” but each time he chose not to do so. Instead, he used the words “attack” or “attackers” seven times, the word “act” twice, and the word “violence” once. He’s not shy about employing adjectives to modify those words, either: he calls them “senseless,” “brutal,” “terrible,”outrageous,” and “shocking.”
Note, however, that the word “terrorist” is never used as an adjective to modify Obama’s descriptions of what happened in Benghazi, nor is it used as a noun to describe the perpetrators. There is no question that the omission was intentional on Obama’s part, because if Obama had wanted to call it a terrorist attack it would have been natural to actually, like, you know, do so.
The only mention of terrorist acts by Obama comes, as I wrote yesterday, in his generic statement of resolve after mentioning both the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (9/11 being an unequivocal act of terrorism, and both wars being part of what used to be called the “War on Terror”).
Obama’s Rose Garden speech was carefully written to make sure the President sounded as though he may have been hinting at quite a few things that he’s not really saying, in order to keep all his options open later.
Speaking of options—watch the tape of the moment in the debate when Obama makes the claim. The words I’m talking about occur right at the beginning where Obama says [emphasis mine], “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror, and I also said that we were going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
To me it appears that Obama feels that he is putting down some extremely tempting bait for Romney, hoping his opponent will bite.
He has rehearsed this approach in preparation for a Libya/Benghazi question; he believes it to be his trump card, and he knows Crowley will cover for him—or, if she fails to do so, that the MSM will do it for her.
It’s also possible that Obama (or his surrogates) have worked this out ahead of time with Crowley. I don’t know; it’s certainly possible, because her waving those papers around when asked to look at the transcript of the speech (are they actually a transcript? Or something else?) is rather odd. Whichever it is, pre-arranged or no, Obama seems especially delighted at what Crowley says, asking her to repeat it and setting up a nice round of forbidden applause (led by Michelle–preplanned as well?) from the audience. Gotcha!
Note also Obama’s affect when Romney questions him as to whether he really means to assert that he called it an act of terror the day after the attack. The camera zooms in on Obama as the president says to Romney “Please proceed, Governor,” and then cuts away just after the fleeting ghost of a faint smile crosses Obama’s face (mostly in his eyes; it occurs at about 1:22). It is at that point that Obama summarily orders Crowley to “check the transcript” (no “please” for Obama), and she immediately answers that Obama did say it that way. Not only do we know that assertion is false, but she didn’t even seem to have time to check any transcript between Obama’s request and her answer.
Crowley attempts to explain it all here:
No one told [Crowley] that Obama had, in fact, uttered the word “terror” the day after the Benghazi attack, and no one had to. “I’d heard it in the Rose Garden,” she said, “I’d seen it before. I’d heard this conversation before.”
I said this in another post here today, but I’ll repeat it. They may be shoring up the leftist base, but they’re turning away 80% of the country.
I’m educated, have a long-standing successful career, and I stay informed, but compared to the high-caliber commenters here, I consider myself one of the regular folks. And regular folks hate it when lawyers parse words like this. Everyone in the country who was paying any attention saw the administration, including Obama, repeat over and over that it was caused by the video. They saw and heard them refuse to call it a terror attack. Right now, they’re all thinking, “Do they think we’re idiots? You know, I believe they do.”
The media has been in the tank with the Democrats for as long as I can remember. I was a freshman in college when Kennedy and Nixon ran for president. The media loved Kennedy and loathed Nixon. Nixon was the spawn of satan. They would write gushing, adulatory stories about Kennedy. My mother called it Kennedy worship. Today it’s Obama worship.
neo says:
Yes. This. We have all noticed, over the years, that Obama verbally surrounds all sides of many issues, thus setting up future deniability.
neo says:
Yes. Our theories mesh.
Obama cannot win an argument over whether or not he misled American citizens as to whether or not the Benghazi attack was preplanned.
Therefore, this debate moment likely was a preplanned attempt to create a magician’s trick — LOOK OVER HERE! — i.e. to draw Romney, Republicans, and conservatives, into an argument over whether or not Obama did or did not use “acts of terror” as a proper descriptor during the Rose Garden statement.
It is my opinion:
1] your article, above, does a nice job proving your point to me, and to other political junkies, yet
2] on this issue: whether or not Obama used “acts of terror” in a plausible and convincing way in the Rose Garden statement: no possible argument will ever defeat Obama IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.
So, your argument wins political junkies, but, on this, NOTHING will ever defeat Obama in the court of public opinion.
Therefore, for electoral purposes, Romney and friends must avoid the battle into which Obama is enticing them and drawing them. Obama’s proposed battle amounts to misdirection; amounts to a magicians trick; amounts to a straw man. Its a feint. Its a trick. The true battle is elsewhere. We must avoid the feint.
Which, I think, is part of what you are saying. So, we are simpatico.
It’s disturbing to have such doubts about the integrity of Obama and his administration, but there are too many suspicious actions, or non-actions, to ignore.
1. Fast and Furious
2. DOJ’s non-prosecution of the New Black Panthers
3. Solyndra and its cousins
4. GM bailout serving the nUAW’s interests and not following established bankruptcy law.
But this one directly affects national security and the coverup, and it’s looking more and more likely every day, could be the worst of them all.
I know I’ve forgotten other questionable occurrences by Obama or his minions. Feel free to remind me.
I wonder what the requisite October surprise will be?
feint
noun
a movement made in order to deceive an adversary; an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack: military feints; the feints of a skilled fencer.
Why would the moderator of the debate have “transcripts” of the Rose Garden news broadcast? Does she have a copy of the Obamacare legislation too? How about the testimony on Fast and Furious?
And did you like the way Obama ordered her to produce the transcript. Is she his secretary or something?
After reviewing the WH Rose Garden speech and the whole debate interaction, it certainly looks like a trap coordinated with Candy.
However, as LisaM said, people are fed up with this kind of nonsense. As my husband & I watched the initial report on 9/11, it was pretty obvious that it was terrorism (who didn’t get that 9-11-2001 sense of dread with all of the embassy riots & first reports of the missing diplomats?). Obama’s claims that it was the video were never believable. It sure looked like he did not want to acknowledge the act of terrorism (and really, act of war) because to do so would require some sort of muscular response.
I do this tedious stuff so you don’t have to . . . I’ve highlighted every one of them in bold.”
Seriously, Neo, this is what the news media should be doing so you wouldn’t have to!
Hopefully, LisaM is spot on in that most of the regular folks see this already.
Susanamantha, I’m betting on a drone attack in Libya.
In the Asian Board game, Go, the player who drives the action is said to be “sente”.
Among Go masters, whomever is sente is almost certain to win. Therefore, you may see opposing players ignore their opponents attempt to be sente, i.e. ignore their opponents aggressive attempts to drive the action. Opposing players often simultaneously attempt to achieve dominant sente, via each player attempting to drive the action via aggressive attacks which occur in separate sections of the board. Neither player wants to be in position of being forced to respond to the opponent’s attack, for that usually leads to a long series of sequential responses which end in defeat.
Romney must do something similar: he must ignore Obama’s attempt to be sente in this area. Instead, Romney must launch his own attempt to be sente, i.e. his own aggressive attack from another section of the board. Romney’s attack should focus on the true issue: whether or not Obama misled American citizens as to whether or not the Benghazi attack was preplanned.
gcotharn – I think Romney’s done a pretty good job a of ignoring Obama’s attempts to be sente. He pushed back hard on the tax returns and all but ignored the myriad of distracting charges of “war on women”, etc. He’s certainly been the sente in both debates.
Also, remember John Boyd’s classic strategic combat concept, the OODA Loop:
Observe
Orient
Decide
Act.
The basic idea: to increase the odds of prevailing in combat, one must have a tighter OODA Loop than one’s opponent.
Boyd’s breakthrough insight:
it is not critically important to make the perfect decision. Rather, it is critically important to make faster decisions, thus driving the action (as opposed to allowing the action to be driven by one’s opponent).
If you are driving the action, the group of your decisions will be superior to the group of your opponent’s decisions. No single decision need be perfect. Rather, the group of your decisions will prevail over the group of the opponent’s decisions.
The danger, for Romney, is that Obama has made an imperfect decision which nevertheless allows Obama to drive the action.
Romney CANNOT chase Obama around. That is a losing strategy. Rather, Romney must go his own direction. Romney must drive the action. Romney has the advantage of having truth on his side, if only he is shrewd enough to see it.
And he is shrewd enough. I have confidence. Romney is extremely talented.
Thanks, neo, for doing all that work.
Know what else I noticed regarding the excerpt? — Ms. Crowley was ^so^ very anxious to move the discussion along, stepping, yea ^stomping^, on Romney’s protestations that Secretary Rice and others propounded that stupid video story for two weeks before they (the administration) conceded it was a terrorist attack.
And she had that transcript (or some piece of paper) ready right there, just as Obama said “go to the transcript” — yes, it does indeed look like a setup.
Yes, indeed.
Lizzy,
I agree that Romney has done pretty well, overall, in driving the action, especially in debates. Also, Romney has held his financial resources, and held them, and held them, and will now unleash advertising hell upon Obama. Good. Romney has chosen his own course, and driven the action his own way.
My excited typing has been specifically about the Benghazi issue. Romney must not fall for Obama’s feint re Benghazi; must not allow Obama to drive the action re Benghazi. Romney must drive the action re Obama’s deceptions re Benghazi.
Hey — and I thought it was only Republicans who did dirty tricks. Stooopid mee.
So. The Won had his script, and Cindy had her copy of the script.
Just too bad it was obvious to the audience…
I so much agree. Reading this post was like eating a big banana split. It looked huge but it went down easy and in the end, there was actually room for more whilst one used the implements of finger and tongue to get every drop of sweet, sweet, syrup. Best post I’ve read on this. Hopes it makes it into PJ.
Meanwhile, Big Bird hit Tagg for carrying a binder of Paul Ryan gaffes.
Neo, thanks for posting the clip of that portion of the “debate”. I watched the first hour at 39000 ft on a Jetblue flight. I missed that section as we were in the landing process. Good thing. After seeing that disgusting display of the Crowley/Obama tag team I probably would have jumped out of my seat screaming and caused an inflight disturbance.
As a trial lawyer with over 40 years experience cross-examining witnesses, I was impressed by the tactic used by Obama’s advocate (the moderator) when she cut off Romney as he was making a major point, by indicating she needed to get to the next question and that he could bring up his point later. The catch is that he is never given the opportunity. This is a common tool of the cross-examiner when the witness is eating his lunch. In the future, Republicans should only agree to debates where the questions are posed by the candidates themselves and a horn is used to indicate time limits.
MENDACITY, thy name is Obama.
MSM-Lapdawgs are dispicable, lying Enablers.
On January 20, 2013, after Mitt takes the oath, the utterly loathsome Candyland Crowley needs to be barred from the White House.
Look at the 9/30/12 interview by Candy Crowley of David Axelrod, regarding the mixed messaging of the Libya explanation. This shows what she knew and when she had made her own analysis. I saw it on Fox but looked it up on YouTube to ensure the authenticity of the Fox representation. Compare this video to what she said during the debate (tag-team match). There is no doubt that she was complicit in attempting fraud.
Bill Clinton: Romney’s Argument Is True, Obama Hasn’t Fixed Country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OeBCWLGoJb0
What LisaM said at the beginning of this thread…
OT: Do we have another changer? Scott Adams (“Dilbert”) has just endorsed Romney: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/firing_offense/
Notice (this is delicious) how he takes on his critics afterwards. Much like Buzz Bissinger, he says he disagrees with Romney on most policy issues, but that Obama is — well, best to let him say it.
This is what I’m hoping: that as these longtime libs start looking at actual, real-life Republicans, they’ll realize that the grotesque caricature they’ve been shown is a lie. Much like what happened in the debates.
Neo, if R&R win, can we play Ethel Merman singing “Everything’s Coming Up Roses”? :-)))
I’m shocked, shocked to learn that there may have been active connivance going on between Obama and Crowley! But desperate times call for desperate measures…
Obama, as he first walked on stage had an arrogant, cocky demeanor about him. It can’t have been simple narcissism because he didn’t exhibit that arrogance in the first debate.
And, given his last debate and regardless of preparation, his demeanor was disproportionate and inconsistent with any level of certainty he might be expected to have, if his expectation was that he faced a level playing field.
But not inconsistent with a belief that the game was secretly rigged in his favor…
First-rate post, Neo. You should see if Glenn Reynolds or some of the other megablogs will link to it. It deserves a wider audience.
Neo:
You just scared the s**t out of me. This is a deep disturbing analysis and I don’t see how it could be anything but right on the money. I was outraged when I saw the debate by Obama’s self righteous indignation that Romeny would dare to question him or his administration on their Benghazi position as if the whole Video narative that Obama presented to the nation and only days later to the world happened in a parrallel universe but this!!!! This is the finest anaylsis you’ve ever done. This should be offered as an article somewhere, not just a post on your blog!
Folks, I have an idea for the ideal moderator in the future: Brian Lamb of CSPAN.
I literally don’t know what his politics are. And he and CSPAN bend over backwards to give both sides equal time and not editorialize.
Lamb, in particular, strikes me as a man of sterling integrity, and consummate fairness. He asks tough questions of ALL his interviewees, while staying courteous.
What say you?
This behavior of Obama can be seen way before this debate.
Is it so odd that he thinks that what he has been doing since at least 2007 is what he should be doing and keep doing?
to the people watching the speeches and the debates and other venues where we all aren’t they are each getting a reality with no substance.
To combine what he said to a targeted audience with what he knew within a two week span, what you have is someone lying to make a class angry at another class.
Romney shouldn’t hav eparsed words with Obama but gone on the attack by pointing out that BHO promptly went off to Las Vegas after the speech to campaign rather than fix the mess. He should have then circled back to the night before when the intelligence community was in contact with the embassy within minutes of the attack and for the next six hours. Despite our Mediterranean fleet and other military assets in the area, no one ordered any help for the ambassador and his staff. They were left to die without any attempt at a rescue
Neo – Great post. There are too many coincidences for it to be anything else Really interesting that you pointed that out. Also true to form, it’s his arrogance that gives the ruse away – play it straight and there’s reasonable doubt it wasn’t a setup. But he can’t help himself from a smug little smile in anticipation of what’s about to come. Taken in context, Michelle’s high-five was probably a celebration of the trap set and sprung. Maybe her idea all along.
LisaM — a famous Republican once said “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
All we need is a little more than 50% this time.
Ben Franklin also commented “Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest”
The other way around this level of dissection over smirks, and such, is akin to the handkerchief cheat sheet analysis at places like the democratic underground…
There’s only one way out of this Benghazi mess for Obama. Just tell Americans he f****** up and apologise. But he can’t. Not in a million years he can’t. Thank God he can’t.
As a default, I always assume the MSM are colluding with the democrats. Or in Obama speak its par for the course. Yet, I contend Candy-Obama made a big mistake. There is no place to hide and no way to obliterate the evidence….. its on youtube.
I forgot to mention that neo is doing heavy lifting on this issue. Keep it up and pass it on.
When the entire exchange is viewed again, it sure looks like a setup. Why would Crowley happen to have the transcript of that particular speech in hand at the debate? She appears to lift the stack of papers at the mention of a transcript! Bizarre.
Still, Obama can’t escape the fact that he and his minions spent days and weeks after the attack blaming the video. That’s the predominant impression of his initial response to what average Americans immediately suspected was terrorism. And his word games with Romney just sharpen the distinction between the two choices.
Time to put a grown-up in charge.
“Why would Crowley happen to have the transcript of that particular speech in hand at the debate?”
Because the Libya/Benghazi debacle is seen by Obama and Crowley as his most current pressing point of vulnerability. It has to be politically neutralized because its the stake in his coffin.
Given everything that’s come to light both before and during the debate, the calculation was made that, that was the point where the leverage of collusion was most needed.
And regular folks hate it– LisaM
That’s Mark’s Levin’s view:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/18/mark_levin_krauthammer_george_will_wrong_about_declaring_obama_winner.html
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » OBAMA THOUGHT HE WAS BAITING A TRAP: Says Neo-Neocon…
Doubling up on Curtis (who needs to use tinyurl) …..
Even talking head Joe get it!
http://tinyurl.com/8zpjgfg
“Please proceed, Governor” has somehow a tinge of chilly hate to it too I think, though very nearly completely concealed. It’s sounds like what Obama might say when he has both no control yet somehow relishes what is to come.
Curiouser and curiouser.
You people gotta read this for the incoherence and lack of tone and gravitas, and most of all, the lack of an explanation.
http://tinyurl.com/8lhz2vk
(I would have said “You folks gotta read this” but that phrase is ruined for me until Obama is out of office.)
Thanks for that link at 8:33 Curtis; I’ll listen while I watch Neo’s ‘lanche!
Artfldgr Says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OeBCWLGoJb0
Oops, the Clintons do not quietly go into the dark night under the bus.
Happy Instalanche, Neo!
The entire show was an orchestrated piece of reality TV propaganda. Obama knew what questions were to be asked and he had the answers at the ready. And as far as Candy and that mop of hair of hers go, it was styled to camouflage the ear bud that gave her talking points. Just look at odd expression on her face when she butted in and decide yourself if she wasn’t just told what to say.
I made this same assessment just based on the main phrase “acts of terror” that everyone is jumping on as proof that Obama did call the Benghazi attack terrorism.
He spent the first two paragraphs mainly speaking about the Benghazi attacks; then he spends two more talking about the original 9/11 attacks. Then, he goes more general opting for “acts of terror” and never really directly references Benghazi again.
As an editor/proofreader, my attention would be drawn to the phrase “acts of terror.” It’s not at all clear what it references. If you use the rule of the nearest antecedant, you’re talking about the original 9/11 attacks. In order to claim that it references Benghazi, you have to jump two paragraphs that contain a possible antecedant or you make it a collective opting to decide that it references generic, non-specific acts of terror which would include 9/11 and possibly Benghazi by default. However, there is no clear way it can easily reference just Benghazi.
I think this is by design. It lets Obama decide how he wants to handle Benghazi by letting him issue a statement loose enough to be played later on as covering whichever narrative he decides to go with. The problem for Obama is that the narrative they decided to go with is that Benghazi was an attack that led to the murder of four Americans, including one ambassador, that arose out of a spontaneous protest caused by a YouTube video viewed by less than 2,000 people at that point in time. And, now, it’s been revealed that it actually was terrorism.
Yes, the Rose Garden statement can be spun to CYA, but only if they hadn’t already spent so long trying to make Benghazi look like something it wasn’t.
No doubt about it, the only problem was that Obama could not contain himself and did not execute according to plan. His eagerness to get Romney exposed him and Candy as collaborators. Candy had to cover for herself by backtracking on her comments because Obama did not follow the rehearsed script. Kinda like the trouble maker who yells “uncle” the first time the scrawny kid lays a blow. Help me Candy, help me.
“So, your argument wins political junkies, but, on this, NOTHING will ever defeat Obama in the court of public opinion.”
So, who does your argument win? Obama is taking a beating in the court of public opinion. Do you *really* think that anyone who already isn’t neck deep in the tank for him is convinced by his excuses?
Candy did more harms than good. Besides she violated the rules, she provoke the curiosity of the undecided/uninformed voters to search for the truth: Obama’s lies and cover up
Great post and I just want to say that every time I think the lame stream media cannot sink any lower, they prove me wrong. I don’t even think there are words enough to express my disgust and loathing for these anti-American treasonous worms. Not all of them – there are exceptions (Jake Tapper for one) but like someone pointed out here, the moderator knew what she was doing since she had interviewed david axelrod on September 30th about this very subject.
I don’t even want them to reverse themselves and be in the tank for the Republicans – I just want them to be remotely close to fair and then let the chips fall where they lay.
In a world where the media is even almost unbiased, Mitt is ahead by 20 in every poll. Of course, in that world, we would be worrying about Hilary putting McCain out of a job.
Another interesting thing regarding the entire exchange was that Obama actually invited Romney to continue talking.
That was something absent the entire time during the debate outside of that one exchange.
He knew Crowley was going to go to bat for him.
sdferr: “Please proceed, Governor” sounds a bit like a Bond villain—although Obama probably thinks he’s doing his best Bond impersonation instead.
Whatever it was, it blew up in their faces..I think Romney knew something was up…that is why he did not force the issue. He will have his chance when Candy is not there to run interference for Obama.
They’re running scared and desperate and made a coverup that it they get caught in is the end of the whole campaign.
Benghazi cover up–Great Satan
Cover up of the Benghazi cover up–Little Satan
Look on Obama’s face when his pro-MB foreign policy is discredited–priceless.
Bloody bore? Hardly. This is the sort of thing that takes a few days to mentally process.
The entire exchange was obviously a planned ambush of Romney that went awry. The giveaway is when Obama tells Crowley to “Get the transcript!”, and the camera shows Crowley holding what appears to be the transcript. Obama is so eager to spring the trap that he forgets that he is not supposed to know that Crowley has the transcript on her desk. Crowley realizes that Obama has blown the whole thing, and puts down the transcript like it’s on fire, then tries to back out of it. Listen to her tone of voice. She’s like a little girl who has been caught with her hand in the cookie jar, and is now trying to sweet-talk her way out of it. Obama for his part acts like a little boy hiding behind his mother and piping in his two cents from across the room. “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Romney never loses his composure for a second. He fights his way through the ambush and it is Obama who lets Crowley bail him out completely at the end of the exchange. You can hear his weakness and relief when Crowley announces that she is changing the subject. (“Alright, I’m happy to do that too.”)
The real story is that Obama and Crowley colluded in a sneak attack, failed, and Obama hid behind Crowley not once but twice in a matter of seconds. Romney fought through the attack with nerves of steel and came out on top.
We haven’t had the third debate, but in my view this was the defining moment of the campaign to date. It’s no wonder Romney picked up ground after the second debate. He showed his mental toughness and routed both Obama and Crowley.
Barack Obama publicly exposed himself to be a cowardly cheater. It’s taken a few days for people to fully comprehend the significance of the exchange, but it’s happening. No wonder the lefties want to talk about nothing but “binders full of women.” La la la. I can’t hear you.
“Barack Obama publicly exposed himself to be a cowardly cheater.”
How manly, hiding behind a woman’s skirts. 😉
BHO continues to play to the Code Pink base. Big mistake because the base is, at a maximum, no more than 40%. R&R with 300+ electoral votes is how I see the end game.
This is very similar to how George Stephanopolous set up a question about contraceptives in the first Republican primary debate. NONE of the Republican candidates were talking about restricting contraceptives. It wasn’t even an issue.
But Stephanopolous knew that the Obama Administration was going to come out soon with the HHS mandate, and was trying to get some poor Republican schmuck to say something on the record that could be used against the entirety of the Republican field later. Fortunately, no candidate swallowed the bait. This didn’t stop the Administration from creating the false “war on women” meme, but it does highlight how democratic leaning “moderators” conspire with the Administration to try to set up the Republicans.
Thank you for such a clear, concise analysis.
Genuinely, you have perfectly expressed what so many of us know and have trouble articulating.
While Obama’s rose Garden statement does leave some room for CYA he did spend the better part of 2 weeks claiming that a recent video was responsible for the violence that has engulfed Africa and the Middle East for months now. How can they think that the average citizen can accept that argument… Are they that insulated from rational thought? No, I think they could care less about the middle east or the folks killed there. The only concern is that the narrative of a successful mid-east policy not be tarnished. After all what is left for them after the Obamacare fiasco and the worse off economy.
It is depressing that the middle east can get so screwed up in such short order. Nuclear weapons in Pakistan and coming soon to Iran are just the beginning of this nightmare. We had a shot at the prize when we took down Sadam and the Taliban but I’m fairly certain that the advantage is lost. The only bright spot is that their nukes will most likely be used against each other before being used against Israel. We have a limited amount of time to get our energy house in order so we better not waste any of it.
I too thought it seemed like Crowley and Obama had worked out this little talking point ahead of time. As he would say later, she jumped on Romney for “using the wrong word.” The exact-wording aspect of it suggested she was primed to hit exactly that point, or how could she even think of jumping off the sidelines to tackle the runner on it?
Note also that she turns out to have earlier hammered Axelrod precisely on Obama’s failure to call the attacks an act of terrorist, reviewing in detail the administrations various dodges on exactly that point. Here’s the link:
http://minx.cc/?post=333937
“CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.” Etcetera.
So she knew the gist of Romney’s remarks were accurate, and probably that in detail they were accurate as well, yet she jumped on this possible Obama talking point. I think that pretty much had to be pre-planned. Otherwise it just doesn’t come to mind, even from her own perspective. She had argued the opposite, so how does this suddenly appear as a point of conviction for her?
Possibly the Obama administration had hit back at her with talking points when she earlier criticized the President for not calling the attacks terrorism. “Look at the transcript,” they may have told her, “and you see that Obama said at the time that our resolve would never be shaken by terrorism.”
She would have known that was bullshit. Even if she hadn’t looked to see that Obama’s terrorism remarks were not naming the attack as terrorism, she certainly knew that the O-minions went on for 2 weeks denying it was an act of terrorism, that Obama had gone on to avoid calling the attacks terrorism, etcetera. But she would have that talking point handy, and maybe in the communications with Crowley leading up to the debate (both camps had a big to-do with her about how much ad libbing she would do, and presumably had discussions with her about it), the Obama people tipped her to the kind of think they might say, and she tipped back about the kind of thing she might say, all with the knowledge that they had already given her this particular talking point.
Bet that’s just what happened. I wonder if she would answer the question: “After you lit into Axlerod about Obama’s failure to blame the Behghazi attack on terrorism, did the Obama administration get back to you with the point about Obama actually having mentioned terrorism in his Rose Garden speech?” She was pretty forthcoming on CNN afterwards about Romney actually being right, so may she would spill the beans on this too. “Just where was it you ‘had that conversation before’? Was it with the Obama people?”
Is it impolite to call a lady reporter a Obama whore?
If so, I apologize but maintain the underlying message.
Is there enough circumstantial evidence here for Romney to accuse Obama of an orchestrated cover up when he debates him on Monday?
Offense!
Obama baited a briar patch, and is now caught in the thorns.
What a shrewd fox.
Somebody needs to do a cartoon of Obama being followed by the guy carrying the nuclear briefcase, followed by 28 MSM reporters carrying his speech transcripts.
Curtis: I don’t think Romney should go there. It sounds too much like tinfoil territory and besides, it’s not necessary. There’s plenty of other very solidly provable facts for him to criticize Obama on.
“Conceded, Mr. Obama. You said the word ‘terrorist’ in the thirteenth paragraph. You never specifically called Benghazi an act of terrorism, but you did use the word. I stand corrected.”
sorry, neo-neocon, cross posted. If Obama tries to use Romney’s “gaffe” the best way is to concede with factual points about the transcript.
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/10/17/obama-tells-candy-crowley-get-the-transcript-she-reads-from-transcript-during-debate-on-act-of-terror-to-correct-romneys-claim-video/
So now President Obama thinks he’s won on points, because he can claim to have used the word “terror”?
Does he really think this will change anything? Only if he’s the sort who believes words are more important than actions — which, of course, he is.
We still have four brutally murdered Americans, who had begged for more security and been refused. Even if the President had denounced this as an act of terror immediately, and sent in the Marines to secure the embassy and place Benghazi under martial law, this would STILL be an unforgivable screw-up… and the responsibility is the President’s, especially given that Hillary still has her job.
This is not truly an American President. This is an overgrown child playacting as one. Every time I see him debating Romney, Obama reminds me of a child dressing up in his daddy’s clothes.
“Is it impolite to call a lady reporter a Obama whore? If so, I apologize but maintain the underlying message.”
No need to apologize when its appropriate.
“Offense!”
Step 1. Visualize victory before stepping onto the mat.
Step 2. Deceive the opponent by lowering your guard and encourage his attack.
Step 3. Do not resist the attack, instead welcome the attack for it is a gift.
Step 4. Blend with the attack and hijack the attacker’s energy and momentum.
Step 5. Put the attacker on the ground using technique gained through diligent training.
That is the martial way.
Using the murder of an American ambassador for political gain. Then accusing the Republicans of doing so.
Are you surprised?
Where is that scene I’m remembering.
Ah yes, I think it is Phillip in “Of Human Bondage” when, against his gentlemanly instincts, accuses his friend of stealing his money. Maybe it’s David Copperfield, but I remember, so clearly, the relief of the accuser to the reaction of the accused upon the accusation being delivered. The accused depended upon the gentlemanly, ahhh, now I have it: it was War and Peace and it was Nicholas who, barely able to comprehend such pefidy, yet unable to not know the truth, told the villian to just keep it. But, the thing is, he knew, he immediately knew upon delivering the accusation and witnessing the reaction of the accused.
Is it a good analogy? Well, Tolstoi was a great writer because he knew human nature. Obama is betting he won’t be called on it.
It would be a risk, a gamble, which at this point, you’re right, probably isn’t necessary. But, think of this: it would mean more than merely winning an election. It would be a symbol of an all time put down of socialism (my word for “it all”) And so the grand struggle might be tilted toward the good for some time.
I suppose you could also view Crowley’s pre-debate statement that she would be more involved as helping to lay the groundwork for her intervention, if you’re conspiracy minded.
What I think is even more telling about the Rose Garden speech is that not once (doing a word search) does Obama mention either “demonstration” or “video.” So, if I take Obama at his word, that he did call it an attack the next day, why then did it devolve to a “video” inspired “demonstration” in the days and weeks that followed? Could it be that an attack – with or without the “terrorist” adjective – was a refutation of his “I killed Osama” bombast?
Maybe, in her explanation, she got confused about which of his speeches she was thinking of since at the Las Vegas one he came closer to saying it was an “act of terror”. I do think you are correct that they colluded in this and it blew up.
The fact is, if Obama needed to make the argument that he NEVER called the attack in Benghazi an “act of terror”, he could point to the same speech in the Rose Garden as verification.
I posted this on PJMedia a day ago.
“But, I’m almost positive that Obama colluded with Candy Crowley about the Libya question. It’s the only logical explanation for why Obama would be supremely confident that Candy would support him in COMPLETE DISREGARD for HER AND CNN’S PREVIOUS position on when his administration declared Benghazi to be a terrorist attack. And, make no mistake, Obama was SUPREMELY confident. Check out the SMILE on his face during the exchange with Romney. Given Candy’s and CNN’s previous reporting about Benghazi, he should have been sweating bullets. But, no. He is smiling and positively giddy, almost like he knew what was coming.”
Would communications between Obama’s campaign staff be subject to FOIA?
Here is a portion of the speech that no one seems to have noticed or commented on.
The White House and Joe Biden and commented that they did not know that Ambassador Stevens had been concerned with security or felt threatened by the situation there. Yet, Obama states this with Hillary nodding in agreement:
“……I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.”
They cannot have this both ways. On one hand they say we did not know of his concerns and on the on the other state they BOTH ” relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there” !!
Notice that even here there is an out – “I think”. If challenged on this he would unthink it very quickly.
This is yet one of a hundred pieces of evidence demonstrating that the entire debate was meant to be a set up. While one can blame the press and Obama, one wonders why Romney and his team agreed to the whole charade in the first place. Then again, for all of their planning and stacking of the deck, it still did not shift the momentum of the race. Obama and his people are feckless even at cheating.
“Obama’s Rose Garden speech was carefully written to make sure the President sounded as though he may have been hinting at quite a few things that he’s not really saying, in order to keep all his options open later.”
Bingo, neo. Here’s what I think happened:
1) Obama already knew by then what had actually happened.
2) He felt he could not afford politically to admit it was a terrorist attack because it would undermine his boasting about killing bin Laden.
3) He knew the truth would come out eventually so he had to try to cover himself but without saying *directly* it was a terrorist attack because that would have killed the “video” story.
4) So he used the words “acts of terror” that he could point to later but did not associate them directly to the attack.
This is undoubtedly the greatest and most shameful deceit ever to come out of the Oval Office, beating Clinton and Nixon by orders of magnitude. I will be very disappointed in my countrymen if he is re-elected.
To expand on my last post – I could be wrong about this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out that Obama himself never said *directly* that the attack was caused by the video; that he only talked about the attack and talked about the video at the same time to leave that impression. Maybe his underlings did (e. g. Rice) but they can always be thrown under the bus if necessary. He had deniability on his mind from the start.
Check the video at the point where Crowley names the next questioner, and Obama heads straight toward someone in the audience and says “Hi Kerry.” Then he stops, looking around with faux confusion — no doubt remembering that he’s not supposed to know who “Kerry” is. Then as Kerry stands up, Obama says “What’s your name again?”
Totally, thoroughly set up. And Obama botched the plot right at the start.
I’ve been seeing the term “EneMedia.” Enemy + Media. I think I like it.
and yes, Obama saying to Miss Candy “Get the transcript!” was a HUGE giveaway.
But Romney really stuck it to Obozo And the Enemedia at the Al Smith Dinner tonight. If you haven’t seen it, check out CSPAN’s video. He’s actually hilarious, and got terrific joke writers, and he beat Obama like a rented mule. BO had that tight, forced grin that he gets when he’s boiling inside. 🙂
I still say we should have Cspan’s Brian Lamb as the only presidential debate moderator.
Cicero on traitors.
Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.
“An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
“He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
“A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Even if we accept that Obama recognized Benghazi as an act of terror, why didn’t he get his team on message? Before sending out surrogates, wouldn’t a real leader meet with his people to coordinate the message? Or would a real leader fly to Las Vegas? The big point is Obama’s governing style: Give out some platitudinous message that underlings will interpret in conflicting ways and then get on the golf course. When the dust settles, Obama claims he always supported …, and there is another body under the bus. It’s just a higher level of voting present.
OT but had to link this:
Jews have had enough?
If this is true I’m in heaven!
Pingback:Questions…and answers » Cold Fury
}}} Note, however, that the word “terrorist” is never used as an adjective to modify Obama’s descriptions of what happened in Benghazi
He also didn’t use the word “Islamic”…
Apparently, despite the rhetoric otherwise, he still hasn’t figured out that the attack was made by Islamic terrorists
}}} It’s just a higher level of voting present.
I believe at these dizzying heights it becomes a level of voting “clueless”.
As a couple of other commenters have noted, it is even worse–that is, Obama ordered, “Get the transcript.”
Beverly,
“enemedia” also resonates of “enema media”!
I’m with Gina on this one. “Get the transcript.”
The moderator just happens to have the Rose Garden transcript?
Now, IIRC, at the beginning of the debate Candy said there was to be no applause.
I do know what the moderators role is, according to the Memorandum of Understanding:
The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audiences or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.
Prior to the debate, Ms. Crowley candidly spoke of her intention to break the rules.
The murder of four Americans is indeed a sensitive topic, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be discussed because the person responsible for their safety will accuse you of attempting to score political points.
The fact is that there was a serious lapse in judgement by this President and administration that shows he is incapable of leading this country. People have a right to speak out against it.
“I’d heard it in the Rose Garden,” she said, “I’d seen it before. I’d heard this conversation before.”
Of course. It is clear as mud. This is not the first time Obama’s use of too many words and throw away platitudes (to make his speeches sound thoughtful).. were then used them to argue he was misquoted / since he said things that were all over the map.
The press would love to pounce on this type of thing… if he was not a dem.
OK, another look at things. Candy did NOT have the transcript. She is holding at least two different sheets of paper in that exchange, and they could be the upcoming questions.
Obama says get the transcript at Romney. He had baited him, then said get the transcript, while wanting to go to the next question, looking at Candy, because he is dismissive of Romney.
On The View, Candy doesn’t say she has the transcript, just that she had covered it.
MikeN: I agree that we don’t know what the papers were that Crowley was waving around. I believe I made that point clear in my post.
Isn’t kind of strange, though (and negligent) of the press not to have clarified that by finding out? One would almost think they’re not curious!
And it is also unclear whom Obama was addressing when he said “get the transcript” (in a little while I’ll be writing a post that discusses that point). Whoever he was addressing, it was a very odd thing to say at that point, since supposedly no one could get the transcript during the debate (unless Crowley had it, which would be very odd as well).
As I said, curiouser and curiouser.
In either case, what a lovely set of events have ensued from the first debate and the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Momentum has switched to Romney as he combines both models of gaining voters to his advantage. Model 1: appeal to the moderates/independents. Model 2: generate excitement and momentum at just the right time.
Still, what would smoking gun look like in the Candy/Obama collusion?
Here is a must read on Obama’s foreign policy problems. It shows why the buck must stop at Obama’s desk.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/18/the_case_for_intervention
This whole episode brought to mind Obamas fascination with the team-of-rivals meme. Someone should have told him that you can’t let the rivals run wild.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/how_much_of_a_set_up_was_crowleys_libya_question.html
Good ole Jack.
C’mon. Obama and Crowley might have colluded, and Michelle might have led the cheer that broke the rules, but Romney had a handkerchief!
Pingback:Is The Post-Debate Benghazi Discussion Playing Into Obama’s Hands? : The Other McCain
I thought that Obama was accusing Romney of playing politics, but I see from reviewing the video that he says “the suggestion that anybody on my team…would play politics or mislead”. I doubt that Romney ever said Obama was playing politics with the terror attack; Obama had to couple that with “or mislead”. This was Obama’s way of attempting to be macho with some false indignation.
}}}} The fact is that there was a serious lapse in judgement by this President and administration
Ummm… wouldn’t you have to actually SHOW judgement before you should be accused of a lapse in it?
Jus’ Sayin’….
}}}} This was Obama’s way of attempting to be macho with some false indignation.
I don’t think it’s really false… he is, after all, a liberal, and they have their permanent membership in the “Perpetually Indignant Club” set up at birth…