Tweet
NO, CANDY, OBAMA DID NOT CALL BENGHAZI “TERRORISM" AND, BY THE WAY,…BUTT OUT!
TWO AGAINST ONE: In an unprecedented violation of presidential debate moderation protocol, CBS' Candy Crowley takes sides during a critical discussion between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama over the September 11th terrorist attack in Benghazi further confirming the reasons why commissioners and organizers did not want her to moderate the debate.
The Daily Pen
Dan Crosby
10/17/2012
Excerpt:
HEMPSTEAD, NY – The September 11th tragedy in Benghazi is yet one more reason why you should never vote for an illegitimate president. The election of an ineligible candidate breeds a weakened sense of sovereignty among the people and, therefore, a diminished sense of unity as a nation which, ultimately, leads to a slackened appreciation of the need to remain diligent in the security of Americans overseas.
The terrorist attack in Benghazi is the seventh terrorist attack attempted or carried out against Americans since Obama became president.
Moreover, now we understand why the Commission on Presidential Debates should never allow a liberal member of the media to moderate a presidential debate in a liberal state.
In moderator Candy Crowley’s vigor to help the usurper, Barack Obama, she committed the cardinal sin of argument facilitation during the second of three 2012 Presidential debates. At Hofstra University on Tuesday night, in the bastion of all blue states, New York, CBS' Crowley plumed her true liberal colors and allied herself with Barack Obama.
Surprise, surprise.
Crowley’s shocking intrusion into the debate between Mitt Romney and Obama occurred near the 66 minute mark of the hour and a half debate when she actually joined the discussion in defense of Obama, thereby committing and act of journalistic malpractice.
During a tense exchange, Romney questioned whether Obama had explicitly called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.
“I think this is interesting. The president just said something which is, on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”
“That's what I said.” interrupted Obama.
Romney fired back, “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?”
“Please proceed governor,” said Obama.
“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.” said Romney.
“Get the transcript,” quipped a visibly annoyed Obama.
Crowley then intervened by taking Obama’s side, “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.”
Taking Crowley’s queue, Obama turned into a five year old brat, “Say that at little louder, Candy.”
Crowley seemed to immediately acknowledge her error telling Romney, “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”
After the debate, Crowley said, “He (Romney) was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.”
“Regardless of her assessment of who was right or wrong, it is not the place of any moderator to correct what a candidate says. A debate is meant for the candidates to display their level of understanding to the people!” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson.
“Unfortunately for Crowley and Obama, Obama did not explicitly call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism. He merely made a broad statement about any act of terrorism, not this one specifically.”
Here is what Obama actually 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," Obama said a day after the attack.
If you are an Obama supporter, this statement was in direct reference to the Benghazi attack, even though Obama does not explicitly say that the Benghazi attack is one of those acts of terrorism he is referring to. This lack of referential integrity is further indicated by his next sentence:
"Today we mourn for 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."
Notice he never says that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror, just that any act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation. More specifically, Obama never put the words “Benghazi” and “terrorism” in the same sentence for two weeks.
If you are not an Obama supporter, this statement was nothing more than a premeditated c.m.a. “escape hatch” intentionally put in place by a calculating politically-minded creature just in case he might be challenged on his competency on the issue of terrorism. This way, Obama knows he could, at least, stand on the word “terrorism” during his reaction to the Benghazi attack without actually calling that specific attack terrorism.
He made the broad sweeping statement intentionally to avoid the specific accusation which would appear unfavorable to his intellectually dishonest position that terrorism has been diminished because of his administration’s efforts in the Middle East.
People love to laud Obama’s intelligence. However, the Obotic horde fails to remember that Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list. He is a man divided among himself.
The problem with Obama’s lack of commitment to his wobbling position is that his administration said the attack was a spontaneous riot spurred by a YouTube video for almost two weeks while intelligence sources contended it was terrorism from day one.
Four days after Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.
"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.
That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."
.....................................
View the complete article at:
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012...-benghazi.html
TWO AGAINST ONE: In an unprecedented violation of presidential debate moderation protocol, CBS' Candy Crowley takes sides during a critical discussion between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama over the September 11th terrorist attack in Benghazi further confirming the reasons why commissioners and organizers did not want her to moderate the debate.
The Daily Pen
Dan Crosby
10/17/2012
Excerpt:
HEMPSTEAD, NY – The September 11th tragedy in Benghazi is yet one more reason why you should never vote for an illegitimate president. The election of an ineligible candidate breeds a weakened sense of sovereignty among the people and, therefore, a diminished sense of unity as a nation which, ultimately, leads to a slackened appreciation of the need to remain diligent in the security of Americans overseas.
The terrorist attack in Benghazi is the seventh terrorist attack attempted or carried out against Americans since Obama became president.
Moreover, now we understand why the Commission on Presidential Debates should never allow a liberal member of the media to moderate a presidential debate in a liberal state.
In moderator Candy Crowley’s vigor to help the usurper, Barack Obama, she committed the cardinal sin of argument facilitation during the second of three 2012 Presidential debates. At Hofstra University on Tuesday night, in the bastion of all blue states, New York, CBS' Crowley plumed her true liberal colors and allied herself with Barack Obama.
Surprise, surprise.
Crowley’s shocking intrusion into the debate between Mitt Romney and Obama occurred near the 66 minute mark of the hour and a half debate when she actually joined the discussion in defense of Obama, thereby committing and act of journalistic malpractice.
During a tense exchange, Romney questioned whether Obama had explicitly called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.
“I think this is interesting. The president just said something which is, on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”
“That's what I said.” interrupted Obama.
Romney fired back, “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?”
“Please proceed governor,” said Obama.
“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.” said Romney.
“Get the transcript,” quipped a visibly annoyed Obama.
Crowley then intervened by taking Obama’s side, “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.”
Taking Crowley’s queue, Obama turned into a five year old brat, “Say that at little louder, Candy.”
Crowley seemed to immediately acknowledge her error telling Romney, “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”
After the debate, Crowley said, “He (Romney) was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.”
“Regardless of her assessment of who was right or wrong, it is not the place of any moderator to correct what a candidate says. A debate is meant for the candidates to display their level of understanding to the people!” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson.
“Unfortunately for Crowley and Obama, Obama did not explicitly call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism. He merely made a broad statement about any act of terrorism, not this one specifically.”
Here is what Obama actually 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," Obama said a day after the attack.
If you are an Obama supporter, this statement was in direct reference to the Benghazi attack, even though Obama does not explicitly say that the Benghazi attack is one of those acts of terrorism he is referring to. This lack of referential integrity is further indicated by his next sentence:
"Today we mourn for 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."
Notice he never says that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror, just that any act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation. More specifically, Obama never put the words “Benghazi” and “terrorism” in the same sentence for two weeks.
If you are not an Obama supporter, this statement was nothing more than a premeditated c.m.a. “escape hatch” intentionally put in place by a calculating politically-minded creature just in case he might be challenged on his competency on the issue of terrorism. This way, Obama knows he could, at least, stand on the word “terrorism” during his reaction to the Benghazi attack without actually calling that specific attack terrorism.
He made the broad sweeping statement intentionally to avoid the specific accusation which would appear unfavorable to his intellectually dishonest position that terrorism has been diminished because of his administration’s efforts in the Middle East.
People love to laud Obama’s intelligence. However, the Obotic horde fails to remember that Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list. He is a man divided among himself.
The problem with Obama’s lack of commitment to his wobbling position is that his administration said the attack was a spontaneous riot spurred by a YouTube video for almost two weeks while intelligence sources contended it was terrorism from day one.
Four days after Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.
"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.
That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."
.....................................
View the complete article at:
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012...-benghazi.html