If You’re Going to Fact-Check in the Middle of a Debate, Big Media, You Damn Well Better Get It Right
Mitt Romney did OK in this debate. Probably Big Media will award Obama the victory. Obama channeled his inner Biden, and interrupted Romney repeatedly while whining about time (even as he got three more minutes thanks to Candy Crowley cutting off Mitt Romney every time he was making a point). If the New Wisdom is that rudeness is strength, then Obama was stronger.
But for conservatives, the lesson of this debate was tat the American people got to see the blatant bias of a moderator stepping in to side with a candidate — even as she stepped all over herself trying to articulate her point.
Crowley screwed up in three ways — one that you’re reading about everywhere, and another two ways that I haven’t seen anyone else complain about.
The obvious point that you’re reading everywhere is that it’s not at all clear Obama called Benghazi an act of terror:
At most, he may have implied it was an act of terror. But then he specifically refused to call it terrorism when asked on multiple occasions, on the View and on Univision. And he sent out Ambassador Rice to bleat about the YouTube video (the “tape”) on five Sunday yakkers. And he brought up the YouTube video six times in his U.N. speech.
Sheesh kabob.
At the very least, Candy, this issue was debatable. Let me say that again: it was debatable.
Which is why you let the candidates debate this debatable issue, in their debate.
Candy.
WHAT YOU HAVE NOT READ ELSEWHERE: On to point two, which is more obscure. Here is Candy Crowley admitting that Mitt Romney was right “in the main”:
20 seconds in, she says:
Right after that, I did turn around and say: “But you were totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and that there was, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consultate, which there wasn’t.” So, he was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.
(Keep that in mind: that she is critical of Romney for using the wrong words.)
So Crowley claims that she communicated that the administration spent two weeks claiming the killings occurred because of the YouTube video. Lest there be any mistake, later in the clip she repeats the claim:
Half the crowd claps for that, and the other half claps for: but they kept telling us this was caused by a tape.
Here’s the problem. That’s not what she actually said. In fact, she said the complete opposite: that it took the administration two weeks to come out with the story about the tape. Here’s the transcript:
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.
CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
So, far from making it clear that the Administration had claimed for two weeks that the violence was a reaction to the “tape” (the movie and the YouTube trailer), Crowley actually said the opposite: that it took two weeks for that idea to “come out.”
What was that about using the wrong words again?
Now, to be fair, she said Romney was correct, and then (after the above quote) agreed with his statement that “the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.” But her quick “it did” agreement did not necessarily make up for the misimpression caused by her garbled statement.
Of course, we now have the above video, in which she says Romney was right “in the main.” And, as Allahpundit says: “Upwards of 60 million people likely watched her side with Obama on Libya during the debate. How many saw this clip on CNN’s post-game show? One million, maybe?”
I was prescient in my open thread post — the one about how the candidates have to be the fact checkers because Big Media will screw up the job. Romney slipped up because this point about Obama calling it an “act of terror” had been a lefty talking point already — I knew Obama had said it — and Romney should have been prepared for that spin. Big Media mangles the fact checks on these things all the time. The candidate has to do the job.
But it is the height of outrage for the moderator to attempt a fact check right in the middle of the debate — and then to screw it up so badly.
If Crowley had any shame, she would feel it now. I think in that clip above, she is trying to minimize the importance of it, and to recharacterize what she said to make it sound more evenhanded. But it wasn’t. 60 million people saw her side with Obama. Here is how the L.A. Times put it:
But Romney’s attack went off course as he tried to insist that Obama had not referred to the attack as an act of “terror” until two weeks after it took place.
Obama responded that he used the word “terror” to describe the attack the day after it occurred, in an address from the Rose Garden. When Romney attempted to dispute that, Crowley stepped in to say that Obama was correct.
This is the simple takeaway, thanks to Crowley’s bias: Romney screwed up and the referee put him in his place.
ANOTHER OBSERVATION YOU’RE NOT SEEING ELSEWHERE: Crowley also let Obama off the hook on Libya with her “let’s move on” shtick that she employed every time Romney tried to make a point. Romney did try to follow up with the issue of the U.N. Ambassador misrepresenting things on the Sunday shows, but Obama suddenly became very concerned about moving on so all these wonderful folks can have their questions answered.
And Candy obligingly helped him dodge the bullet:
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary –
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how –
OBAMA: Candy, I’m –
ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous –
CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me –
OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation –
CROWLEY: I know you –
OBAMA: — about foreign policy.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also –
OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too.
CROWLEY: — the transcripts and –
OBAMA: I just want to make sure that –
CROWLEY: — figure out what we –
OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.
CROWLEY: Because what I — what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.
All she had to do was say: Isn’t that right, Mr. President? Didn’t Ambassador Rice tell the world for days that this was all about the “tape”?
But you know what? Obama did say he would be happy to have a longer discussion about this. And the third debate is foreign policy. And Candy’s decision to flap her gums on this issue ensures that the issue will be front and center.
You’re going to get that longer discussion, Mr. Obama.
Me? I’m looking forward to it.
Ding.
Also: tl;dr.
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/16/2012 @ 11:44 pmAn sich ?
Alasdair (2cd241) — 10/17/2012 @ 12:04 amMany thanks, Mr Bloghost ! I have been watching for a chance to complete that phrase ever since that first first “Ding” ! (grin)
Alasdair (2cd241) — 10/17/2012 @ 12:05 amBetween the first and second debates, it is *almost* time for me to go get me some Intrade action while the Obama crowd is still delusional …
Alasdair (2cd241) — 10/17/2012 @ 12:06 amThere’s a real discussion out there and a bigger point to this. Obama would love to trip it up in a technicality of one phrase, but that’s a petty approach to something people want taken a little more seriously.
They point to one phrase on the 12th, what about all of September 12-25! Obama’s apparently crystal clear, unequivocal, unquestionable Rose Garden characterization of the events in Benghazi reached no one (not even us for whom terrorism was already obvious that day), but the mischaracterization did. The mischaracterization he and his team perpetuated for two weeks.
Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary, and Obama all maintained they didn’t know whether it was a terrorist attack over those days. They needed more information. No indication it was preplanned. It was the video. It was the despicable video. It was the reprehensible video. It was the video that we condemn. There’s an investigation. Etc. Etc.
They instinctively covered up the Islamist terror story and condemned a film to play into some image and to hide their mismanagement. The information coming out about the history of consulate attacks and the denied requests for protection begins to confirm that they are mismanaging our foreign policy and not taking threats as seriously as perhaps they should.
And we’re getting the runaround. That’s the problem.
Joseph D (beda48) — 10/17/2012 @ 12:23 amJoseph D: They didn’t just condemn the video. They condemned the film-maker, hauled him in for questioning in the middle of the night, and revealed his name and address to the world — subjecting him and his family to death threats that forced the family to leave their home. The President of the United States put a target on a private citizen for two weeks and disgraced America by lying in every speech he made here at home and on the world’s stage (UN). This is MUCH worse than Spike Lee revealing George Zimmerman’s address (and getting it wrong, so that an innocent elderly couple were forced to flee their home in fear for their lives).
I would like to see more outrage about Obama endangering the life of a private citizen in his megalomaniacal determination to protect his re-election campaign.
pa (4f643b) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:36 amYes! Patterico! I’m so glad you noticed that. I was reading what she said this morning, and she totally misrepresented what happened in the two weeks after the attack.
I don’t think she meant to, but that’s why she should have kept quiet.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:37 amI disagree. No moderator should be fact-checking in the middle of the debate. Regardless of whether she is right or wrong, IT’S NOT HER ROLE.
aunursa (7014a8) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:20 amcandy, your an ignorant slob.
mg (e0b08a) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:40 amI was listening to the “debate” while doing homework so I might be a bit off, but did she not say, at one point when cutting Mitt off again, “that’s not how it works, here”. It was about halfway through, or so.
ferret face (a19b3a) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:04 amShe didn’t screw up her “fact check”. She accomplished what she wanted; to muddy Romney’s statement of fact and facilitate Obama’s spin.
She did that. Maybe not in the way she wanted to because she was trying to stop Romney and at the same time try to state the facts in a way that would make Obama’s statement true and be arguably factual. That’s why the stuttering as she quickly tried to choose the path of her spin.
She went to an event, like so many “journalists” do, not to record and transmit to others what occurred at that event but to be a part of the event and to shape whatever happen(s/ed) into a narrative that would benefit their agenda. Which in this particular case was to hold Romney down and give the media the opportunity to trumpet Obama’s performance as a comeback.
Why Republicans repeatedly allow known partisan operatives to moderate their debates fills me with questions about the party’s motives and/or grasp of reality.
Jcw46 (b4329c) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:11 amROMNEY: 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?
Romney’s saying here (he’s garbling the sentence) that Obama is saying that he said it was an act of terror and not a spontaneous demonstration.
He’s talking like the two concepts are a contradiction one to the other.
He gets in trouble partially because he’s using a definition of the word “terror” that’s more limited than many people would.
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:23 amIt sure sounded to me like she was intentionally trying to interfere with Romney’s ability to make any particularly hard hitting points.
This is the GOP’s fault. We know by now that debate moderators are a problem. We continue to accept lopsided debate structures where the moderators are usually professional pseudo-objective journalists who will side with democrats.
We have professional debate societies, so there is no shortage of even handed moderators. We have plenty of judges who could handle this task. A moderator’s task shouldn’t be that difficult if they know their role and allow the candidates to debate while keeping the time and enforcing basic rules (such as about interruptions).
Let’s just have no more journalists in the role of moderator going forward.
I feel the same way. Obama shows no loyalty to American citizens.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:24 amThey are.
Terror is a premeditated and planned attack. What we were hearing was that the video had spawned a more organic problem, where masses were simply protesting, which boiled over into the incident.
These are two radically different versions of what happened. The latter is simply a complete fiction.
I think he was quite clear. I’ve been one to not cut Romney any slack, and that seems to me how you’ve been reacting to both Romney and Ryan for some time now.
Let’s look at your quote with more accurate punctuation.
I think that conveys that Romney was defining the term terror (accurately) and asking Obama if he really means what he’s saying, because if it is, then Obama has been exposed as being deceptive.
Romney restating Obama’s argument and asking him if his understanding of Obama’s argument is accurate strikes me as a reasonable way of debating. It’s lucky for Obama that the moderator decided to bail him out. Romney had him nailed on this.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:31 am“CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also – ”
Oh how I wish Mr. Romney had cut her off with a “No. I don’t want to move on. There are fundamental principles at stake here, too important to be glossed over… ” yadda yadda.
But Mr. Romney, he has experience at these things. He is talking to the mushy middle, something I have little experience with.
Sitting down obediently at the whim of the debate nazi, maybe that’s the way to go.
Maybe that’s the way to get the squish vote.
We’ll see.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:32 amI thought Crowley had mentioned the transcript in the debate. She did, but very briefly, never finishing her thought later on.
I didn’t remember right.
It went like this:
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.
What’s going on here now? Romney became Obama’s straight man!
CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror.
Here I think Crowley is actually relying on memory. (“Let me call it” = she’s not exactly sure what exactly Obama said early on. When Obama asks her to repeat that, she gets more certain.
Later on she says:
CROWLEY: ….But I want to — I want to move you on and also –
OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too.
CROWLEY: — the transcripts and –
OBAMA: I just want to make sure that –
CROWLEY: — figure out what we…
And also she’d like to take a look at the transcripts and figure out what (Obama actually said)
Earlier, right after giving a point to Obama (he did call it an act of terror) she feels tat could leave people with the wrong impression, or at least the wrong impression about what she’s saying (since everybody knows the story)
Now she wants to give a point to Romney, and garbles that:
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.
Wait, wait wait. What did Romney say?
He said “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
I think she meant to say:
…it took two weeks or so for [it to come out that] the whole idea [out there about this]
therebeing a riotout thereabout this tape [was wrong]to come out.There. I think I fixed up her sentence, retaining as many of the original words as possible..
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:52 amSecretary of State misrepresenting things on the Sunday shows
Not Secretary of State. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:02 amHere’s one more for you.
Yesterday, pre-debate, Crowley said this in an interview:
At the debate we heard:
Obama’s answer?
mrt721 (75a1ff) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:18 am“We’ll Find Out What Happened”.
Apples and oranges?
Remind me never to send Ms. Crowley shopping for fruit.
who ya gonna believe? Crowley’s self-serving, after-debate spin or your lying ears?!?!
Colonel Haiku (1b356b) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:23 amSubstance versus suck:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/16/Romney-big-winner
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:33 amthat’s a big one, mrt721. That’s a straight question that Obama has the answer to. That he can’t answer it speaks volumes.
Also, Fast and Furious didn’t get enough coverage.
Obama has good reason to be thrilled with Crowley’s service to his campaign.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:41 amit did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.
I didn’t see the debate and I can only guess that it made more sense than the transcript. It’s almost like she is trying to be incomprehensible on purpose while still providing words that can be unscrambled in a few different ways later on as necessary. I dunno.
j curtis (3bb534) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:44 amCrowley statement about taking 2 weeks for the tape to come out was upside down and backwards, and to anyone watching the debate who was not already familiar with the facts, jumbled them up horribly.
But at least the topic is out there.
LASue (2b0ffb) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:22 amThis will make Libya and the Adminstration’s response front and center of the final debate. Not only did Obama merely give a vague reference to 911 terror not relate to Libya, he also flew off for a fundraiser after the speech. Then he and his UN ambassador and other officials repeatedly LIED about the cause of the attack for over two weeks. Over a month after the attack and crickets! After 9/11/2001, Bush had a coalition, a UN resolution, congressional approval, ally support and BOOTS on the ground in Afghanistan, all in LESS THAN A MONTH.
I also think a more plausible reason for an AlQueada attack on 911, would be the video and TV ads of Obama spiking the football over Osama bin Laden’s death. His campaign has repeatedly used Osama’s killing as a campaign gimmick, Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive! This blatant gloating has to be a huge motivation to prove AlQuaeda is still alive and still lethal. The video excuse I believe is their attempt to divert attention away from their own ‘offensive to jihadists’ end zone dance! Really which tape would an Islamist be more likely to see? Some obscure YouTube video or the President’s repeated reference to his personal involvement in the Bin Laden raid? Video never passed the smell test, I believe it was a diversion to avoid discussion of their own “offenses to Islam!”
Anyone else or I am just a conspiracy nut?
TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:25 am24. “a more plausible reason for an AlQueada attack on 911, would be the video and TV ads of Obama spiking the football over Osama bin Laden’s death.”
Excellent point. In fact, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack as reprisal for al Libi hit, hero of the February 17th.
Bet Jarrett/Mooch/DownLow are telling everyone in WH OBL hit was a mistake, and they told you so.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:42 amHe was the most accessible HVT, from AQ’s point of view, although from that Library of Congress
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:45 amreport, one is hard pressed to pick any one target for retaliatin,
As naciso’s link to Diplomad blog few threads back pointed out, SS, Pentagon, CIA and WH, all shared real-time closed circuit view of the attacks.
They scrambled a rapid response unit from Sicily to the safe house and suffered a professional mortar attack.
Unquestionably BootBlack knew all of this before leaving DC for Vegas. Probably had SportsCenter interrupted by intrusive debriefs.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:49 amThis is what I was referring to, earlier;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/13/august-2012-us-report-shows-libya-on-the-road-to-becoming-a-failed-islamist-state/
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:49 amInsightful take on Whitewater gang:
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2012/10/more-on-hillary-benghazi-gambit-hitting.html
Chi-town’s goons are brutes.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:58 amNext!
http://www.latinospost.com/articles/5496/20121015/presidential-debates-2012-third-debate-topics-confirmed-moderator-bob-schieffer-obama-romney-election-foreign-policy.htm
Deadpool, who kicks first, Brokaw or Schieffer?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:19 amFWIW, a small comment. While talking about Obama flying to Vegas for a fund raiser right after the attack may sound like a bad thing for him to do, I’m not sure if him being in Air Force 1 makes him any less able to fulfill his responsibilities as president than if he was in DC. I’m not sure that meeting a speaking engagement would interfere in his role either. Is there an appearance on mistaken priorities? Yes, but the bigger issue is the false narrative and I wouldn’t want to get time taken up over the Vegas trip.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:34 amAs I said, a small point FWIW.
7. Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2012 @ 1:37 am
As I think Calvin Coolidge said (although it wouldn’t have been original with him)
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”
It’s also been attributed to Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln (with no time and place) but this might be the source:
It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it. ~Maurice Switzer, 1906
(Thanks, Garson O’Toole of quoteinvestigator.com!)
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/#more-227
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:37 amTrue, MD, he was doing fundraisers down here, and was at the WHCD, around the time of the UBL strike, but the fact that’s it’s been a month, and they haven’t settled on a target.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:40 amLet’s take Obama at his word, that he called it terrorism in his Rose Garden remarks. If he believed that, why did they push the YouTube video spontaneous demonstration with Rice and Carnie and Axelrod for the next 2-3 weeks?
I like how Crowley quickly changed topics for Obama, so all those good undecideds could ask their questions.
I really liked how Obama responded to Fast and Furious by jabbering on about teachers.
JD (43ce10) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:42 amRe; Trip to Vegas.
I think this is an attempt to echo the (bad) criticism of President George W. Bush for not getting out of that classroom in Florida right away on September 11, 2001. (or possibly for being out of touch while flying around with no set destination on Air Force One)
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:42 amI’m not sure that meeting a speaking engagement would interfere in his role either. Is there an appearance on mistaken priorities? Yes, but the bigger issue is the false narrative and I wouldn’t want to get time taken up over the Vegas trip.
I think it is a good counterpoint to the argument some (such as John Kerry) are trying to make, that this is a national tragedy and we should all pull together as we did on 9/11, rather than ask ugly questions.
If Obama can fly off to raise money within 24 hours, it isn’t a 9/11-level national tragedy.
MayBee (4901b0) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:45 amLike Luntz’s schtick even if cloying:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/17/video-luntz-focus-group-unloads-on-obama-after-debate/
Only MI and PA remain tossups from the RealClear passel. OR, WA, CT what say you?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:48 amComment by narciso — 10/17/2012 @ 6:40 am
True, MD, he was doing fundraisers down here, and was at the WHCD, around the time of the UBL strike, but the fact that’s it’s been a month, and they haven’t settled on a target.
I hope they don’t, because it almost certainly won’t be the right target.
President Clinton hit the wrong targets in 1998:
1) The wrong pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan (they had sooper sekrit intelligence from soil samples that it was used for manufacturing chemical weapons, and outdated or wrong information that it was owned or connected to Osama bin Laden)
2) A terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, run by Pakistan’s rouge military intelligence agency, (a front group, but not Al Qaeda) that was used for training terrorists to commit acts of terrorism against India
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:49 amExcellent post.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:49 amDebates moderated by drag queens are kinda gay I think. Just a little.
happyfeet (c68c30) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:53 amIn retrospect, he wasn’t that far off, with El Shifa, but it was like when the Joker robbed the
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:54 amMob bank, something you don’t do,
Same with the ISI and HUM, it’s unsporting to point that out.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:58 amHere’s another Crowley highlight:
Obama drones on about automatic weapons. Romney pointed out that Obama wasn’t so tough on guns with Fast and Furious.
Crowley barked at Romney this question isn’t about Fast and Furious.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:59 amNothing about the Libya thing will affect what happens in November really, so it was a win for Romney in that this debate frozened up the perception that he’s preferable to food stamp on the economy, and since the next debate is all about declining America’s feeble foreign policy efforts I’d say his romneyness is sitting pretty
happyfeet (c68c30) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:01 am43. Nitpick, ‘bellowed’ more fitting than ‘barked’, as in Basset hound.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:06 amthis is going to go down as next to lincoln douglas, a decisive game changing debate in americas direction.
the lying like that of the USSR at the UN, isnt going over well,
I jus pray that Romney, who cant wait to tax me, restrains himself.
EPWJ (b3df72) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:07 amObama has actually given up on reelection, I believe. There is no other reason for him to introduce his stupid answer on gun control and a renewal of the faux “assault weapons” ban – a topic he’s carefully and intentionally avoided for four years.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:13 amMr epwj the drag queen debate was so not a game changer as long as mitt and food stamp know how to love we all know they’ll stay alive
hey hey
happyfeet (0df414) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:15 amActually it wasn’t such a bad thing to hit those terrorist training camps (designed for terrorism in Kashmir)
Pakistan cut back on that a lot, and they thought the United States was very interested in what they were doing against India.
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:16 am47. I agree, Down Low, always, invariably, is playing an angle.
Apart from the perks, which Mooch loves, he’d rather be retired retired.
He’s just going thru the motions to save a post-DC, post-Chicago life style, and for that matter, life.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:17 amHis whole performance played to his base and the MSNBC crowd. If he is still worried about them …
JD (43ce10) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:22 amBy the way, there still isn’t a Romney-Ryan yard sign in my yard because the local GOP office keeps running out from high demand.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:25 amYou care about security as much as you care about the debt.
Your only interest is short term political gain.
If you want to attack Obama seriously you could use this, but you won’t, because in foreign policy the stupidity is bipartisn
“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.
That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.”
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:27 amJezuz, I forgot the link again.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:28 amhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I think there was a second pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum that was actually producing some compounds for chemical weapons, but Al-Shifa was (at least by that time) producing only pharmaceuticals. (Things written about this don’t tend to mention the one that was not struck)
Oh, look at this: (from Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering…
That’s the person picked by Hillary Clinton to make a report about the security before the Benghazi attack and who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, and whether they had any external contacts and if there was a link to Al Qaeda.
He will surely protect some people.
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:30 amAnd on the news at 11, they showed the clip of Crowley siding with Obama, leaving the impression that Mitt Romney was wrong. I would have thought that by that time they would have known she was wrong. And of course it wasn’t her fault, Romney used the wrong word.
Crowley’s performance was deplorable. She constantly cut off Mitt Romney just as he was making a point that would have made Obama look bad and two thirds of the questions were anti Romney.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:30 amSyria is where peace prize is standing by watching all those peeps get slaughtered like startled pheasants, yes?
He’s very decisive about American impotence in the face of mass death. That would’ve been a good thing to mention in the part where he contrasted himself with Mr bush
happyfeet (c68c30) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:32 amEl Shifa was owned by some VIPs with high connection.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:32 amsleeepy, you are a clown, the Obama admin policy on Syria was criticized during the VP debate. That the Obama admin policy regarding “Arab Spring” is backfiring on us has been a theme for a long time.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:33 amSPQR – slurpy was passed out at that time.
JD (43ce10) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:35 amYou’re a pathetic terrorist-lover.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:36 amShe went to an event, like so many “journalists” do, not to record and transmit to others what occurred at that event but to be a part of the event and to shape whatever happen(s/ed) into a narrative that would benefit their agenda. Which in this particular case was to hold Romney down and give the media the opportunity to trumpet Obama’s performance as a comeback.
This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, there seem to be very few “journalists” able to keep themselves out of the debate and recognize that a moderator is, and does, just that – moderate. It’s another evidence of the self-inflated view of the modern journalist that “we” the public *need* them to not only explain information to us, but to shape it in the way that we need to receive it. It wholly involves their own biases, pre-conceived views and it’s personal.
That Candy Crowley is not fully ashamed of her behavior last night further evidences the enormous denigration of the profession of journalism. In a prior time, when integrity and ethics were at the heart of journalism – and actually mattered – the collective peer-pressure of her colleagues holding her feet to the fire would have already happened.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:37 amP.T., coming from a fascist blackshirt like you, that’s a complement.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:37 ambin Qumu, among others, is using his camps to train Syrian jihadists, that’s the big deal.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:44 amIll man’s fountain of hate is endless.
JD (318f81) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:45 amRoasted crowley hooves?
Urp
happyfeet (c68c30) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:47 amFrom Wikipedia: (which of course has its accuracy problems, especially on controversial topics, but this is not all that controversial now)
Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering claimed to have sufficient evidence against Sudan, including contacts between officials at Al-Shifa plant and Iraqi chemical weapons experts, with the Iraq chemical weapons program the only one identified with using EMPTA for VX production.
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a Sudanese opposition in Cairo led by Mubarak Al-Mahdi, also insisted that the plant was producing ingredients for chemical weapons. [5]
5. Noah, Timothy (March 31, 2004). “Khartoum Revisited, Part 2”. Slate. http://slate.msn.com/id/2098102/.
Former Clinton administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and former national security advisor Sandy Berger also noted the facilities alleged ties with the former Iraqi government. Clarke also cited Iraq’s $199,000 contract with al Shifa for veterinary medicine under the UN’s Oil for Food Program.
David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector also said that Iraq may have assisted in the construction of the Al-Shifa plant, noting that Sudan would be unlikely to have the technical knowledge to produce VX.[6]
6. Staff (21 August 1998) VX the most toxic of nerve agents CNN, Retrieved 17 August 2012
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:47 amOfficials later acknowledged, however, “that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed.
Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s.”[7]
7. Lacey, Marc (October 20, 2005). “Look at the Place! Sudan Says, ‘Say Sorry,’ but U.S. Won’t”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/international/africa/20khartoum.html.
However, a Clinton State Department official had stated that a money manager for Bin Laden had claimed that Bin Laden had, indeed, invested in Al Shifa.
Sooper sekrit inteligence, you know.
Bin Laden actually didn’t have all that much money, unless he stole it.
And that the Al Shifa manager even lived in the same Sudan house Bin Laden himself had previously lived in.[8][9]
8. “U.S. claims more evidence linking Sudanese plant to chemical weapons”. CNN. September 1, 1998. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9809/01/sudan.plant/.
9. Susman, Tina (27 August 1998) Bin Laden Link: El-Shifa Factory Chief Lives in House He Used to Occupy Newsday, Retrieved 17 August 2012
Previously lived in. This would tie him to bin Laden, or bin Laden’s sponsors and financial supporters.
That is completely consistent with an “everything is bin Laden” cover story.
The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: “Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.’s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak.”[10]
10. Risen, James (October 27, 1999). “To Bomb Sudan Plant, or Not: A Year Later, Debates Rankle” (archived). The New York Times (Cornell University). Archived from the original on August 31, 2000.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000831005711/http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sudbous.htm.
The Chairman of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, who is critical of the Sudanese government, more recently told reporters: “I had inventories of every chemical and records of every employee’s history. There were no such [nerve gas] chemicals being made here.”[11]
11. McLaughlin, Abraham (January 26, 2004). “Sudan shifts from pariah to partner”. The Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0126/p01s05-woaf.html.
Nonetheless, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a “WMD-related facility”, which played a “chemical weapons role” such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology.[12]
12. Cohen, William S. (March 23, 2004). “Statement to The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” (PDF)
Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate.
Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there.[7]
7. Lacey, Marc (October 20, 2005). “Look at the Place! Sudan Says, ‘Say Sorry,’ but U.S. Won’t”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/international/africa/20khartoum.html.
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 7:58 amComment by sleeeepy — 10/17/2012 @ 7:27 am
“in foreign policy the stupidity is bipartisan.”
“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.
That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:05 amI meant to comment – maybe not equally stupid.
We’ll see in the next debate who makes more sense.
Will Obama correct his facts, and realize Saudi Arabia and Qatar are no friends of democracy and are actually working against U.S. policy? (He’s making the very same mistake that the Reagan Administration made with regard to Afghanistan in the 1980’s, where Pakistan was allowed to channel the money)
If not, will Romney call him out on it?
If neither, if both will get things wrong, who sounds like he might realize the errors and reverse policy sooner?
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:11 amComment by Dana — 10/17/2012 @ 7:37 am
That Candy Crowley is not fully ashamed of her behavior last night
She is, or was, in denial. She bungled this badly.
Sammy Finkelman (762ee4) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:13 amOver several years of elections Republicans have collectively wrung their hands over always having their candidates participate in debates being moderated by known liberal partisan DC inbred journalists. From years of experience we are able to accurately predict that there will be leftist meme slanted questions, unfair interruptions, mismatched times to respond, and subtle deference to the left candidate’s arguments. And, as sure as the sun rises in the east, each time, no matter who “wins” the debate, the pattern of the moderator’s left leaning partisanship is clearly reaffirmed and is even less subtle than in the past. Many of us complain, “Why do Repub. campaigns agree to this? Why to we accept these partisan moderators? Why do we agree to participate in these conditions?”
My discussion question to you all this morning (which I think is a fair adjunct to this great post from Patterico, is: What can reasonably be done about this? What changes are even possible to insist upon for future televised debates? Is this not an even greater concern now that so many of the younger rising “journos” are coming out of J.Schools and college even more emboldened and awash in leftist philosophy than the dinosaurs currently chosen to moderate? I think about this issue a lot.
elissa (219bc4) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:21 amCandy Crowley put her big fat foot in her big fat mouth and like Obama (who she supports) she tries not to admit she is WRONG. Everyone knew she was going to try to make comments and swing the debate. Candy Crowley did NOT do the job she was hired to do. If she didn’t agree to the terms, then they should of gotten someone else. Watch out everyone. When you see/hear Candy Crowley talking, you better fact check her!
Susie Q (362e8e) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:36 amIt certainly was a self-inflicted wound by Crowley, Susie Q. Had Candy just followed the original plan/agreement for the town hall set by the election commission she would not have inserted herself so directly into the candidates’ discussion and made herself the goat.
elissa (219bc4) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:45 amelissa, my simple thoughts are that the Repubs should simply refuse to a debate series format unless it allows a mix of people, including some thought to be “conservative” as well as some acknowledged liberals. A problem, as we all know, is that we think Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Bill Bennett, for starters, are reasonably objective people and Dems don’t, and they think PBS folks are objective but they aren’t. So lets get Chris Wallace and Chris Matthews moderating each for 1/2 hour at a time.
If the repubs put their foot down, the question is whether the public at large will believe the spin that the repubs want a slanted debate, or will the public be sympathetic to the repub complaint of previous unfairness.
All that blabbing simplified- I doubt if there ever will be “a” good moderator, perhaps a combo would be allowed/be better, repubs putting their foot down has the risk of them looking like the bad guys.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:50 amMD, why do we even need journalists or pundits to moderate debates? Why not a well experienced debate moderator from a University, or a judge with a good reputation for fairness?
All they need to be doing is asking the questions and watching the clock, perhaps asking interruptions be stopped if they get out of hand.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/17/2012 @ 8:57 amBy the way, there still isn’t a Romney-Ryan yard sign in my yard because the local GOP office keeps running out from high demand.
Just put a chair out there, by itself.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:00 amelissa,
That is a great question but I don’t think there is a good, easy answer. The ultimate answer is to promote balance and neutrality in the media, but it took time to get such a lop-sided media and it will take time to fix it — especially the enormous job of getting rid of the liberal bias in J-School education. However, I think we’re making inroads by having media like talk radio, Fox News, and an expanding group of new media options. That’s why my biggest concern about American society is our education system, not the media.
In the meantime, the GOP continues to agonize over whether to participate in these debates. I think that’s a mistake. We have to participate or risk forfeiting the game to the Democrats. And, frankly, we have a better message but it is harder to condense into feel-good soundbites, so debates are good opportunities to share that message. They can also be good vehicles to let the public see the media’s bias in ways that never happen on the carefully scripted evening news.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:03 amAll those clips last night with Crowley thinking she had been even-handed when in fact she misspoke badly. I gotta believe that when she finally sees the tape, she’s going to have a real bad “Oh, shi+!” moment. Karma, thou art a heartless b1tch.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:06 amIt was a frustrating debate because of the crappy and biased moderation.
But even with that, Obama failed to make the case that he should be reelected. Its still hilarious how much he tries to pretend he is running for election, not reelection.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:07 amComment by Dustin — 10/17/2012 @ 8:57 am
Whether journalist or not, the issue of fairness/objectivity will always be there. You want a college professor, how about Erwin Chemerinsky (sp)? 😉
Actually, maybe we could get alternating between Erwin and Robby George from Princeton, I would go for that.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:13 amAarrgh. Don’t mention Erwin Chemerinsky. That clown drives me nuts.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:16 amdrives me nuts.
Comment by SPQR — 10/17/2012 @ 9:16 am
Me too.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:18 amYou must admit, it made my point about having the same problem if we used law professors to moderate the debate. He would be one of the Dems first choices.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=all
“United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled “Al Qaeda cells” or “aligned with Al Qaeda,” as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West.”
Read the whole thing.
And Sammy Israel backs Saudi. THey have mutual interests
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:20 amAsk Bibi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSfKCjt-ndA&feature=player_embedded
It might be instructive to have a pair of debates, one run by Ed Shultz and the other by Hannity. Stop pretending and embrace bias.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:23 amGood point. I was hoping that someone who had a lot of experience for debate moderation would conduct herself in a way where personal bias didn’t matter.
But perhaps Kevin’s right and we should just pick up two outright biased moderators to balance eachother.
My concern is that the moderators lately have tried to make the debate about them, instead of about the candidates.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:34 amI prefer formats that have 2-3 moderators because there is twice the chance the Debate Commission would either pick someone more moderate or that the moderators would try to get more attention by asking something different. However, there’s also a greater risk that the moderators would try to out-liberal each other or that “something different” would end up being “Boxers or briefs?”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:43 amMD in Philly, when I was practicing in California, Chemerinsky wrote a column for the Cal Bar Journal. He had a habit of claiming that constitutional law actually was X where that something was his argument about what it should be but didn’t actually match any S.Ct. opinion holdings. I found it dishonest and grating.
Well, that and I was taught constitutional law by his mousy looking ex-wife …
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:45 amSPQR, when I hear him on Hewitt I wonder what planet he is from.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:52 amMD in Philly, Erwin is why I don’t listen to Hugh.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:54 amComment by SPQR
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/17/2012 @ 9:56 amChuckles. 🙂
Meanwhile, Obama’s White House … and its war on women’s paychecks.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 10:04 amIn the final debate the commission should have said that the minutes would balanced out from the former debates, so Romney is owed 6 extra minutes… If the moderators and the candidates had to account for their time then maybe we would get less interruption and more concise answers. Maybe for 2016 the commission on presidential debates can take a look at the lopsided interruptions that disproportionately harmed Romney by preventing I’m from finishing his point. And also the fact the constant interruptions by both Obama and Crowley, as in the earlier debates ate away Romney’s time so that Obama ends up with at least 3 minutes more to speak during each debate. I know it doesn’t seem like Obama had so much extra time because he never said anything new but that should not allow him to filibuster the times.
TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 10/17/2012 @ 11:04 amAll those clips last night with Crowley thinking she had been even-handed when in fact she misspoke badly. I gotta believe that when she finally sees the tape, she’s going to have a real bad “Oh, shi+!” moment. Karma, thou art a heartless b1tch.
Kevin M,
This assumes she has an active conscience as well as an objectivity with her profession. You give her way too much credit. There will be no epiphany, the light bulb won’t go off, nor will her conscience pang her. I say that because she didn’t cover her mouth in shock that she acted out her bias in such an important moment, nor at any time before nor after, did she show any self-restraint.
I believe she went in there intending to give the president cover. Look at the nature of the questions *she* chose from the audience. That was the first clue in. Her behavior from beginning to end was without integrity. I give her no quarter.
It’s now 11:17 am PST, I have yet to see any statement from her. And she’s had time.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/17/2012 @ 11:18 amshe went in there intending to give the president cover.
The “parent” must protect the “child”.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 11:33 amThey, the media, created him, and no-one gets to destroy him unless they first give approval for that.
I demand to know why Obama broke White House protocol then, calling something terrorism when the correct phrase is “man caused disaster”
Hawkins (1fc204) — 10/17/2012 @ 11:38 amThe memo never got to him, it must have been pinned to that “buck”.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 11:56 amComment by sleeeepy — 10/17/2012 @ 9:20 am
And Sammy Israel backs Saudi.
I said Prince Bandar was good at what he does.
THey have mutual interests
Not really.
Ask Bibi.
I think Saudi disinformation is having more success with other Israeli politicians.
Bibi had to stop this business about not wanting Bashir Assad to fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSfKCjt-ndA&feature=player_embedded
I’ll take a look at that.
Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a) — 10/17/2012 @ 12:34 pmComment by Hawkins — 10/17/2012 @ 11:38 am
I demand to know why Obama broke White House protocol then, calling something terrorism when the correct phrase is “man caused disaster”
I think that’s only used in the Department of Homeland Security.
In other places
terrorist(s)Go to —> violent extremist(s)
(or a phrase with the name of the organization he belongs to)
“Terrorism” or “act of terror” may be OK, in the Obama Administration (unwritten?) usage manual, but not “terrorist.”
They also don’t like “war on terror.”
Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a) — 10/17/2012 @ 12:43 pmThat’s an odd thing to say, since you support a president who is close personal friends with several terrorists. Most decent people might cooperate with these terrorists for some common purpose, but couldn’t bear to be in a room with them a moment longer than they had to without punching them in the face; and yet your president chose to socialize with them. What does that say about him? If nothing else it makes “terrorist-lover” an epithet you should avoid, no?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:04 pmTed Koppel: “Israeli officials want a public commitment from Washington to protect the Saudi regime should it come under threat..”
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:22 pmhttp://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7965
Orig. from the WSJ
There’s more where that came from.
Uh oh. A new conundrum for Candy C. to sort out—-deciding whether to blame a plot to blow up the Federal Reserve of New York on the Mohammed video trailer, or on Islamic Al Queda terrorism.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/man-arrested-in-plot-to-blow-up-federal-reserve-bank-in-new-york/
elissa (219bc4) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:30 pmI’m sure it’s just a glitch;
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/man-arrested-in-plot-to-blow-up-federal-reserve-bank-in-new-york/?hpt=hp_t1
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:30 pm“That’s an odd thing to say, since you support a president who is close personal friends with several terrorists. ” You mean like Dana Rohrabacher?.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:33 pmBut then there were so many others like him. Never mind all those new friends of the MEK.
Wow, they switched the troll-generator from Pillman to Comatose.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:37 pmelissa, to nudge Candy into the correct analysis of the NY-Fed situation, we just need to remind her that this gentleman is from Bangladesh, aka, East Pakistan.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:39 pmEven the msm has come to the realization, belatedly, that Pakistani’s are a bit suspect.
Interestingly, he came in January, so I don’t think the tape excuse will play.
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:40 pmExcellent points, Narciso and AD. I think it’s very important to try to send the WH, campaign spokespeople, and the media off in the right direction on this one so as to avoid a similar embarrassing 3 week three ring circus such as we witnessed over the Benghazi massacre. Thank goodness no one was killed or injured in this latest terror attempt.
elissa (219bc4) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:52 pmInterestingly how the FBI was always able to interject themselves into espionage cells and plots here (Commies, and now Jihadi’s), but after the Church Fiasco, the CIA just can’t do anything very good overseas anymore.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 1:57 pmIt’s like they just lost their mojo, and have no idea how to get it back
PC will do that to you (which is why the infection over at the Pentagon needs to be completely routed before it destroys our ability to defends ourselves and our friends).
That was no mistake. Do you really think Reagan was so naïve as to think that Pakistan’s interests were exactly the same as ours, so we should just trust them with the money?! Putting them in charge of the money was their condition for joining the alliance against the Soviets at all, and we couldn’t do it without them. So we gave them the money, knowing that they had their own agenda, but so long as that agenda included getting rid of the Soviets the main goal was being achieved.
When we armed the Soviets against the Germans, we knew (or ought to have known that they were no friends of ours), but at the time defeating the Germans was the priority, and any complications that would arise later could be dealt with later. Ditto when we brought in the mafia against Mussolini. And ditto with the ISI.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:05 pmHere’s a photo of a Democratic President sitting next to the second or third largest mass murderer in history.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:11 pmWhere Obama is unique, is that FDR didn’t have Dzhugashvili ghost write his memoir.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:12 pmThis media – which would count the peanuts in Mitt Romney’s deuces if given access – has no interest, not the slightest, in reporting on the lies, inconsistencies and failures of Barack Hussein 0bama. Why is that?
Colonel Haiku (19a039) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:18 pm112. Comment by SPQR — 10/17/2012 @ 2:12 pm
Where Obama is unique, is that FDR didn’t have Dzhugashvili ghost write his memoir.
FDR didn’t write any memoirs, or other books.
I saw an advertisement the other day for books by presidents that they had personally signed – for FDR they had a 1936 Democratic Party campaign book of some sort given out at the convention or something like that.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:27 pm102. They knew who he was and what he wanted to do before he came to this country.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:35 pmSammy:
Are you sure?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:37 pmNothing on that clip suggests that Israel backs Saudi Arabia, as you claim. Netanyahu is asked one question, but in typical politician style he answers a different question. Here’s my translation for the benefit of those who don’t speak Hebrew. Note carefully that he doesn’t answer the question, or say anything at all that wasn’t obvious and well-known anyway.
Q: What is your position on Saudi Arabia? Have your relations with SA improved, and is there any cooperation between the two countries?
A: We have many interests in common, that we could advance, in the economy, policy, and regional conceptions. And I also believe that, like us, Saudi Arabia sees that the spread of terror by extreme elements is a very great danger, and I expect that the Saudi regime, like other regimes, will operate against these dangerous forces.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:38 pmSF: FDR didn’t write any memoirs, or other books.
Comment by DRJ — 10/17/2012 @ 2:37 pm
Are you sure?
No.
Let’s see what these books are:
Compilations:
The only one that looks like a book is
Looking Forward published in March 1933
Basically a political book.
The rest is speeches and letters made into books.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:45 pmUm, on what basis do you call those people terrorists? And what on earth makes you think Rohrabacher made friends with them anyway? He probably never saw them or spoke to them again after that photo was taken.
Them too.
Meanwhile your president is a personal friend of the most loathsome people; actual terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn, Khalidi, etc. So how dare you call anyone here a terrorist-lover?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:48 pmYes, Frank Church has a lot to answer for. If there’s one American who can be said to be responsible for 11-Sep-2001 it’s him.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:52 pmThe link I provided included an abbreviated list of FDR’s books but you could see them all if you clicked on the link entitled “More Books by Franklin D. Roosevelt.” Here is the complete list. Many are compilations of his speeches and correspondence, but there are also several books including a 4-volume set written with Kenneth Davis that is autobiographical.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 2:56 pmHow to do this “fairly”? Oh, I’ve thought about that for decades. There’s a way.
Candidates A and B (and C … if available) are each put into a sound-proof booth. Q1 is asked of all, their answers are recorded, say 90 seconds; mike and video cut off then, what you say after the clock hits zero is seen and heard only by some of the technicians, who are too busy to pay attention to you. Q2 likewise, Q3, … until all questions are asked (and all answers are collected.)
Candidates are kept in their booths (perhaps with a potty break.) All of the answers to Q1 are played to all of the candidates. Now, each candidate is allowed to turn on his microphone and address the audience and the other candidates. If more than one wishes to speak, microphones are turned on in the order they are pressed (a candidate may turn off the request.) He (or she) has 90 seconds, which he does not need to use. If he turns off his mike, his countdown clock stops, he can rejoin the discussion later by attempting to turn it on, and the next microphone becomes active. (This was designed for radio, but video – follow – audio is an old trick.)
No more comments? 90 seconds is ADDED to each clock. You can talk less and get more time later.
Next set of answers are played. ….
All answers and discussions done? By lot, each gets to speak for any time left on their clock if they wish.
htom (412a17) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:22 pmOh, and the greatest mind alive, the Constitutional scholar, CEO of the USA, doesn’t seem to know the difference between a hazy implication and a statement of fact and or belief.
And wasn’t Romney’s early statement about demonstrations elsewhere, before the killings?
htom (412a17) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:25 pmFlying out to Vegas on AF1 separates the President from the operational arm of USG.
It’s clear from Axelrod’s pathetic talk show appearances that he didn’t convene a meeting of his National Security Council. A no-brainer considering this was the armed assault on a US embassy that resulted in the murder of an ambassador since Carter. But Obama apparently doesn’t have a brain; Axelrod tried to say Obama had been “in contact” with people who had needed input on national security.
Which means he apparently called them, as if that’s the same as convening a meeting.
This is a guy who thinks he can phone it in. Just as he thinks he can read a synopsis of a brief and it’s just as good as being briefed.
He does not know what he’s doing. That is, when he isn’t campaigning, fundraising, or golf. Granted, when he’s involved in one of those 3 activities he is probably competent.
But when it comes to actually governing, not clue one.
So in a way you’re right, Doc. Flying out to Vegas did not seriously degrade Obama’s ability to function as President. It’s just something that no competent President would think of doing.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:29 pmFlying out to Vegas did not seriously degrade Obama’s ability to function as President. It’s just something that no competent President would think of doing.
Not only would a competent president not fly out to Vegas, but neither would a president who fully understood the significance of the event and the degree of loss. And it goes without saying that appearances indeed matter. The fact is Obama chose what was most important to him at that point in time regardless of what the families of those Americans lost thought or felt and whether it set an appropriate tone for the country.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:51 pmIOW, actions speak louder than words. Especially if you’re the President of the United States.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:55 pmTrue, Dana, specially when one couldn’t assume it would be limited to that one attack, there was an attack against the American School in Tunis, and against the Bastion in Afganistan,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:57 pmObama actually provided a clear demonstration of that runaround problem at the debate, on this very question.
WaPo-Presidential debate: Libya questioner says Obama didn’t answer
Obama completely avoided the question, instead talking about how much he values our diplomats, then lying about Romney’s reaction on the night in question.
So, after Obama dodges the real question, then claims he called it a terrorist attack right away, he seeks the questioner out to explain why he didn’t call it a terrorist attack right away but instead delayed doing so. For weeks.
All ist klar, herr kommissar?
The guy’s a lying sack of s***, he’ll shed one story for another, then shift back and forth, more easily than a snake sheds its skin.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/17/2012 @ 3:59 pmForgot to point out this gem:
I guess nobody clued President Eye Candy that these individuals have been testifying openly and under their own names for days now.
I guess if it’s not on “The View,” “American Idol,” “Jersey Shore,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” “Letterman,” or “Keeping up with the Kardashians” then President Tiger Beat doesn’t know about it.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:07 pmObama wants to sit in the Oval Office, but he does not want to be President. He does not want the responsibility.
The books next summer from the admin people will be enlightening as to how out of his league Obama was.
SPQR (a76321) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:12 pmI think President Magic Mouth read about those on his iPad later. It never occurred to the “most sophisticated consumer of intelligence EVAH” to ask about troublespots before things went south.
Only after the horse got out does it occur to this lightweight to shut the barn door.
Protests breach US embassies in Yemen, Sudan
And not too effectively, I might add, since Obumble and “tickle me Biden” are punchlines abroad.
Sudan Humiliates Obama Administration
This klown kar administration is a disgrace.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:16 pmI guess if it’s not on “The View,” “American Idol,” “Jersey Shore,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” “Letterman,” or “Keeping up with the Kardashians” then President Tiger Beat doesn’t know about it.
That, more than anything else, seems to sum up the Hope&Change Presidency.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:17 pmThe Obama tell-all books should be amazing. They could make the books attacking Palin look tame.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:18 pmExcept, so many of the insiders in this administration are from academia; and with a tell-all to their (dis)credit, they could lose their re-entrance card back to that cloistered paradise.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:23 pmThe “parent” must protect the “child”.
They, the media, created him, and no-one gets to destroy him unless they first give approval for that.
It just amazes me that a full-grown man does not chafe at being protected like a small child; whether it’s during the debate with Crowley giving him cover, or after the first debate when everyone and their brother was making excuses for him. Doesn’t he ever just want to tell everyone to STFU and let me own it?
That’s what a real man would do. He would resent the hell out of others covering for him and wiping his nose.
I suppose I’ve answered my own question.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:24 pmNot just the admin people. On 9/11/2012 the watchstanders in the WH Situation Room, the National Military Command Center, and other intel and military command and control centers were seeing and hearing exactly what they were seeing at the State Department Operations Center.
Think they didn’t give Hillary! a ring so she could watch, too? Or does she just show up for the photo op like during the bin Laden Raid.
Apparently King Putt and Slow Joe were kept out to the loop, too, because anyone watching and listening to that feed would have known there was no protest.
But that’s the lie the permacampaignistration hit upon to comport with the reelection narrative.
You know, there’s nothing classified about an assault on our embassy. Anything you can detect with the Mod 1 Mark 0 eyeball is completely unclassified. Nothing is going to stop one or all of those people watching this go down in real time, no doubt asking their chains of command what they should do, and getting no response back (much like Nordstrom’s multiple requests for beefing up security in Libya in the first place) from writing tell all books.
I’ve written before that Obama conducts his foreign policy like a 13 y.o. girl begging her jock boyfriend to take her back. No matter how many times she gets b**** slapped or dumped on she keeps crawling back.
He lies like one, too. He thinks he’s slick, when if you’ve been around the block a couple of times you know for a fact he’s full of it. But just because he doesn’t know any better, he thinks you don’t either.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:28 pmRemember how upset people used to get when Rush, early in the Administration, referred to Teh Won as The Boy President?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:28 pmDRJ
I doubt it – Palin was a conservative so she is fair game – Obama is a sacred living god whose only failing is that he wouldnt do the stoop labor of actually leading the country –
EPWJ (2925ff) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:31 pmBuzzsawmonkey is at the top of his game: The Candy Ma’am
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/17/2012 @ 4:58 pmhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/george_will_immeasurably_the_best_debate_i_have_seen.html
“Both candidates tonight I think tip-toed right up to the point of rudeness, but stepped back. It was a very good fight. I have seen every presidential debate in American history since the floor of Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. This was immeasurably the best.”
George Will.
You’re embarrassing yourselves.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:06 pmMy prediction: At least one book by an Obama insider will be titled “Empty Chair”. “Empty Suit” would be better. But I trademarked it. 😉
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:09 pmSlurpy has demonstrated an inability to be embarrassed, or feel shame.
JD (43ce10) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:17 pmObama evidently feels no shame either, which he should, given that another of the Dept of Energy’s subsidy crony-capitalism parasites bit it today with a bankruptcy filing. A123 the battery maker.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:21 pmSleeeepy–fascinating! Which other of George Will’s columns and appearances have you agreed with and found to be particularly compelling political commentary? Do tell.
elissa (219bc4) — 10/17/2012 @ 5:59 pmThis gives a fairly comprehensive overview;
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/confusion-or-coverup_654416.html?nopager=1
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:02 pm“Which other of George Will’s columns and appearances have you agreed with and found to be particularly compelling political commentary? Do tell”
I’m not sure I agree here either, but that’s not the point, which is the difference between disagreement, even in anger, and blind incoherent rage.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:13 pmTwo interesting notes, the Libyan Ambassador, did call it terrorism, and the apology for the film, began the protests were underway in Cairo,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:16 pmheh.
elissa (219bc4) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:21 pmdifference between disagreement, even in anger, and blind incoherent rage.
2 emotions slurpy and illman know very well
JD (43ce10) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:28 pmThe Empty Suit(tm) boldly defended by the Empty Head Troll Brigade.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2012 @ 6:42 pmFrom the debate:
CROWLEY: Don’t go away, though — right. Don’t go away
What’s that about? Don’t change the channel
because
I’ve got a big question coming up right now? Does anyone remember what maybe didn’t get on the transcript?
Obama had just said, about immigration:
OBAMA: This used to be a bipartisan issue.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:17 pmCROWLEY (continued): .[don’t go away, because] …I — I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka who wants to switch the topic for us.
OBAMA: OK.
Hi, Kerry.
QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President.
OBAMA: I’m sorry. What’s your name?
QUESTION: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
OBAMA: Great to see you.
QUESTION: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply (ph) in Minneola yesterday.
OBAMA: Ah.
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?
Obama never answered that question.
But he agreed to talk to Kerry Ladka after the debate off camera and off-mike – or maybe that was part of the agreement for the debate.
The discussion also went into the other things about Libya that had been discussed in that question.
What Did President Obama Tell Debate Questioner Kerry Ladka Off-Camera?
….Tonight, Ladka joined On the Record to discuss what President Obama told him privately.
Ladka said, “He tried to explain that the reason he took so long between that initial announcement in the Rose Garden and about two weeks later when he formally announced it as an act of terrorism, [was] that he wanted to be deliberate, that he didn’t want to make a mistake based on misinformation.”
Ladka told Greta Van Susteren, “I think everyone knew it was a terrorist attack right from the beginning.”
Speaking about the story that the anti-Islamic film was to blame for the attack, Ladka said, “I can only speculate that it was to give himself [Obama] time to try and uncover the information he needed to uncover to find out who actually was responsible for these terrorist killings.”
Apparently Ladka came up up with this idea on his own. Obama was trying to fool the terrorists into thinking he had no idea. No, that’s not what Obama said. Obama said he didn’t want to make a mistake. Ladka said everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, so he reinterpreted what Obama told him to try to make it make sense.
The thing was, as very few people realize, or believe at any rate, there was sooper sekrit intelligence that told a different story – that said it was a spur of the moment decision to take advantage of a protest about the video.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:31 pmLadka also discussed the original question with Obama:
From the Fox News Insider story:
(reporting what Kerry Ladka said on the Fox News show “On the Record” about his semi-“off the record” conversation with President Obama after the debate:
He went on to say that he felt better about the president after he took personal responsibility for the State Department’s mistake in not providing the consulate with enhanced security.
He added, “I still feel it was a huge mistake by the State Department and ultimately the president that caused the deaths of four innocent American citizens.”
It doesn’t sound like Obama got too specific here – perhaps he didn’t say anything at all about that semi-privately but only continued to talk about his public statements.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:34 pmStill your unfounded speculation, Sammy. Even the lying Jay Carney is abandoning that line.
SPQR (ae79c0) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:37 pmThe protests in Cairo influenced the timing and PR of a terror raid already planning stages Sammy, and you know that’s the real content of the intercept.
SPQR (ae79c0) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:44 pmThe Bolsheviks didn’t start the October revolution either. They were preparing something, and might have launched it some time in 1918, but the October Revolution caught them by surprise, and they hurried to get in front of it.
Milhouse (454b9e) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:49 pmTo emulate Obama’s mentors, Milhouse, blame it on the Mensheviks.
SPQR (ae79c0) — 10/18/2012 @ 12:52 pmComment by SPQR — 10/18/2012 @ 12:37 pm
Still your unfounded speculation, Sammy.
The only way of making sense of the statements is that that’s what they were claiming. It just sounds incomprehensible.
How can anyone take intelligence seriously that is so wrong – that tries to tell something that anyone with an acquaintance with the facts would know is not so (that is, there was no protest apart from the attack, and there were two separate attacks too)
They took it so seriously because they were probably getting a lot of disinformation.
That there was a protest about the video in Benghazi was also said by people in the Libyan government.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:17 pmI suspect some of the comments were not in good faith, but rather were cynical political moves. The apparent contradiction might be better explained as lying rather than some secret truth.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:24 pmEven the lying Jay Carney is abandoning that line.
I don’t know. Let’s see now…
Press Gaggle [Gaggle?! -SF] by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Athens, Ohio, 10/17/2012
Q One of the more explosive moments, obviously, last night was about the consulate attack in Benghazi and what the President said the day after, on December 12th. Was the President specifically talking about the attack in Benghazi when he referenced terrorist attacks in a more vague manner from the Rose Garden?
MR. CARNEY: Yes. He came out to the Rose Garden with his Secretary of State for one reason and one reason only: Four Americans had just been killed in Benghazi, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. He said that day, “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.”
He said — he referred again to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror on two more occasions within the next several days, as you know.
What he seems to be saying now is: The president never really said it was anything but an act of terror..
But here, let’s see. One reporter asked a very good question. I had pointed this out too, but Romney got all befuddled.
Q Is it fair to say that even when the intelligence suggested it was a spontaneous protest in Benghazi, you still considered it an act of terror, that there’s not a binary distinction between a protest started by a YouTube video and an act of terror, that they could be both at the same time?
Exactly. Just like a premeditated murder could be premeditated two minutes before. Romney was perceivimng this binary distinction.
And Jay Carney says, yes, that’s exactly right. And by the way he talks about the intelligence again. He has NOT stopped saying that.
MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the question because I think that is — it gets right to the heart of the matter. As the DNI has made clear and as we and others have made clear, the picture presented of what happened by the intelligence committee — the intelligence community has evolved from the early hours of the attack to this day, and that investigation and that gathering of facts continues.
Any time an embassy or diplomatic facility is attacked by force with weapons and Americans are killed, that is an act of terror under the definition of terrorism that applies at the NCTC and elsewhere. It was not an accident that the President spoke of acts of terror in the Rose Garden when he went to speak to the American people about the attack that had taken four American lives.
The issue has always been — and we have been very transparent about what we have known, when we have known it, and when what we know has changed as more facts have come to light in terms of what was the cause of the attacks, who was responsible, what its relation to the video was, if any.
We have been very clear about what we’ve known and what the basis of that knowledge has been, and very clear from the beginning that what we were telling you and the American people was preliminary in nature and that it would change as the investigations proceeded.
And later on he says again:
the intelligence has evolved, has changed.
And again:
Q Jay, can you just clarify a colleague’s question earlier — is there no substantive difference between, say, a demonstration that turns violent and a concentrated, concerted attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility by a group that intends to do ill to the United States?
MR. CARNEY: What I can — well, obviously what happens in the demonstration and how it becomes violent, and what actions are taken, and if there are actions against U.S. interests, including the violent assault on a diplomatic facility that results in the killing of four Americans, including our Ambassador — that that is, by definition, an act of terror.
The issue that is subject to investigation and that has obviously been a source of the discussion here has been who was responsible, what their motivations were, and how the attack itself came about.
But the fact that an embassy or a diplomatic facility was attacked with force and weapons and four Americans were killed makes it an act of terror.
Didn’t I say just that in comment 12?
Obama is not going to deny that he talked a lot about a video and he wasn’t doing that during the debate.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:27 pmEven if Obama’s definition of terrorism was unreasonable he was using it – on Sept 12.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:28 pmHe just wasn’t using it to describe the attack on Bengazi.
As Althouse showed with a hypo, what he was doing was covering his bases while refusing to draw conclusions (that he probably could have drawn at that point, and certainly soon after when his administration deceived us about the nature of this terrorism).
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:42 pm“Even if Obama’s definition of terrorism was unreasonable he was using it – on Sept 12.”
Sammy – If you are going to Fact Check something use Facts. Fact: Obama did not use the word terrorism on September 12 and repeatedly denied the act was tied to terrorism for weeks afterward.
Carry on.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:56 pmSammy, Jay Carney never says in the quotes you cut and pasted that there was intelligence that said that the attack was a spontaneous protest arising from the video. He never comes out and says it. He avoids saying it. And he avoids denying it.
You keep trying to pump air into nothing.
SPQR (768505) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:56 pm161. Comment by Dustin — 10/18/2012 @ 1:42 pm
As Althouse showed with a hypo, what he was doing was covering his bases
The Althouse question came from:
http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-hypothetical-inspired-by-last-night.html
Say you’re a police investigator, and you find a dead body with no clear cause of death.
It’s a high-profile case, and the public wants to know if there was foul play. You give a press conference in which you say, “One thing’s for sure: no act of murder will ever shake our resolve.”
By making that statement, have you announced that the person was definitely murdered?
No. You’ve just uttered a platitude to express the fact that you’re taking the case seriously, without committing to a position on what actually happened.
You may be right. If the death was accidental, it could not by any definition be called terrorism.
So we can’t say what was the definition of definition that Obama was using on September 12, and if it would have included the video protest theory.
But it is clear at least that Obama was open to the possibility it was terrorism.
It is also pretty reasonable to assume that any kind of attack on U.S diplomats because they are U.S. diplomats is an act of terrorism, even if it was planned on the spur of the moment.
A prosecutor would not require evidence of long term planning to indict.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 1:59 pmComment by daleyrocks — 10/18/2012 @ 1:56 pm
Sammy – If you are going to Fact Check something use Facts. Fact: Obama did not use the word terrorism on September 12 and repeatedly denied the act was tied to terrorism for weeks afterward.
Obama used the words “acts of terror” Now what were the acts of terror?
Something that happened on some other days than September 11, 2012?
Something that did not kill anybody, but what killed someone was not necessarily terror??
What he was not saying was that it was tied to anything bigger, anything organized. He was not connecting it to any terrorist group. Not denying that, either.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:03 pm“Obama used the words “acts of terror” Now what were the acts of terror?”
Sammy – Correct. The acts of terror as defined by Jay Carney were the killing of innocent civilians. Now did he or did he not deny the Benghazi attack was terrorism for weeks afterward?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:13 pmI sincerely believe that announcements by Jay Carney, and walls-of-text by Sammy Finkelman, are of equal weight with the veracity of Baghdad Bob; and therefore, I FTMP ignore both.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:16 pmIn Libya, Chaos Was Followed by Organized Ambush, Official Says – New York Times Sept 14 by SULIMAN ALI ZWAY and RICK GLADSTONE; Suliman Ali Zway reported from Benghazi, Libya, and Rick Gladstone from New York.
Some of the bad intelligence was coming from someone in the Libyan government – the man with a lot of ways of spelling his name in the Latin alphabet (but I don’t think he was the sole source)
Parts of Mr. Sharif’s account were not consistent with what other Libyan witnesses have said, and his version has not been corroborated by American officials, who have said it remains unclear how and where Mr. Stevens was killed.
Many Libyans considered Mr. Stevens a hero for his support of their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
Unfortunately, this news article does not point out what are the contradictions.
It does say none of this had been corroborated (vouched for, I think that would mean) by American officials.
By Friday, Sept 14 at least, he had split it up into two attacks (which there were) and tried to say only the second one was planned:
The mayhem here that killed four United States diplomatic personnel, including the ambassador, was actually two attacks — the first one spontaneous and the second highly organized and possibly aided by anti-American infiltrators of Libya’s young government, a top Libyan security official said Thursday.
The account by the official, Wanis el-Sharif, given to a few reporters here, was the most detailed yet of the chaotic events on Tuesday in this eastern Libyan city that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the first United States ambassador to be killed on duty in more than 30 years….
…Mr. Sharif, a deputy interior minister, said Mr. Stevens and a second American diplomat, Sean Smith, were killed in the initial attack, which began as a disorganized but angry demonstration by civilians and militants outside the American Consulate on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The protest escalated into an assault by as many as 200 people, some armed with grenades, who set the building on fire.
The second wave, Mr. Sharif said, was hours later, when the consulate staff was being spirited to a safe house a mile away. At that point, a team of Libyan security officials was evacuating them in a convoy guarded by Marines and Libyan security officials who had been flown from Tripoli to retrieve them.
Mr. Sharif said the second attack was a premeditated ambush on the convoy by assailants who were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and apparently knew the route the vehicles were taking.
Now that’s a nice question: How did they know where to attack the second time?
Maybe they were spying for along time, but of course that would tell you right away that the first attack was likely planned as well.
The article says:
If the attackers were not part of a larger international plot, there are no obvious targets for American retaliation.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:18 pmComment by daleyrocks — 10/18/2012 @ 2:13 pm
Sammy – Correct. The acts of terror as defined by Jay Carney were the killing of innocent civilians. Now did he or did he not deny the Benghazi attack was terrorism for weeks afterward?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
No, he did not. At point we had an insistence by Susan Rice that this was spontaneous, as Wanis el-Sharif seems to have said, (I am not sure that Carney ever went out on a limb like that) but not that it wasn’t terrorism. Susan Rice didn’t say it wasn’t terrorism. Just that it wasn’t pre-planned.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:21 pmI didn’t realize that, Sammy. I mostly skim over Althouse’s blog (there’s a lot of interesting content there, but there’s only so much time in a day).
I’ll add jaltcoh to my bookmarks.
He did not say there were acts of terror (obviously there were). He just offered the point that he opposes terror, in a way that did not conclude this attack was that. And he helpfully elaborated with his administration’s dissembling that this was just an organic riot thing stemming from a video.
Which is also pretty annoying. That videographer shouldn’t be thrown to the wolves in hopes of saving the president a point or two in a poll.
Fortunately, the way Romney got Obama to react in the last debate might set the stage for the next, as DRJ and others have mused. I have to admit, Romney’s got his act together in a way I didn’t give him credit for in the primary (which may be why I didn’t expect he would win).
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:22 pmSammy, you are mistaken.
U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)(2)
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:23 pmComment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 10/18/2012 @ 2:16 pm
I FTMP ignore both.
Don’t.
There is indeed a problem with intelligence and evaluation – Joe Biden made that very clear in the Vice Presidential debate when he was talking about Syria.
They weren’t making it up about intelligence.
Some of that is even public – this man Wanis el-Sharif.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:24 pmIf you just get mad and do something violent without pre-planning, that is obviously not terrorism. If you plan out an attack for political reasons, that is terrorism.
This attack was planned by Al Qaida. It was planned to occur on the anniversary of 9/11. It was coordinated with other attacks, and prefaced by several.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:25 pm“No, he did not.”
Sammy – Easy answer. What did Obama say about the Benghazi attack being terrorism on the David Letterman Show and the View?
The Administration clearly makes the distinction between the terms “Acts of Terror” and terrorism. I don’t understand why you are trying to muddy the waters.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:33 pmComment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/18/2012 @ 2:24 pm
Sorry, Sammy; I calls ’em like I sees ’em!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:33 pmI guess I hadn’t picked up on this, but it makes sense as a way for cowardly leaders to ignore terrorism while covering their asses.
The bottom line for me is that we deserve to have some frankness about this attack, this loss of our ambassador and the other personnel, the loss of aircraft… the war on terror didn’t end when those SEALs triumphed over Bin Laden’s hovel.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:38 pmClearly the War Against the Great Satan hasn’t ended, or that Bangladeshi would not have been “entrapped” by the FBI in NYC yesterday.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:40 pmSammy – Joel Pollak at Breitbart has done a good job of tracking the administration’s prevaricating on this subject. Below is an excerpt from one of his pieces. He has some earlier pieces just after the Biden debate which also illustrate the point.
“Obama did use the word “terrorists” in his Sep. 18 appearance on the David Letterman Show. But he used it to claim that the “terrorists” had acted only in response to the anti-Islamic video, taking advantage of public outrage against it. As we now know–and as the administration (at least the State Department) knew at the time–there had been no public demonstration of outrage at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
That marked the beginning of a subtle distinction that the administration attempted to make for several weeks: the difference between terrorism as an action (or reaction), and terrorism as an independent motive or cause.
On Sep. 20, for example, when the administration first began to backtrack, White House spokesman Jay Carney suddenly told reporters that it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack had been a “terrorist attack”–by which he meant specifically that “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
In other words, the attack was “terrorist” because it was violent–but not necessarily because it was carried out by terrorists.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/14/The-Big-Lie-Obama-Did-Not-Call-Libya-Attacks-Terrorism-on-September-12
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:40 pmSF: Susan Rice didn’t say it wasn’t terrorism. Just that it wasn’t pre-planned.
Sammy, you are mistaken.
Comment by Dustin — 10/18/2012 @ 2:23 pm
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)(2)
What’s the definition of “premeditated”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder
In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder.
Subnational means not acting on the orders of a sovereign government.
Group?
They always said it was a group of people.
Everyone always said heavily armed Islamist militants stormed and burned the American Consulate.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:42 pm“I guess I hadn’t picked up on this”
Dustin – See #178.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:42 pm“I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is is?”
Why the world hates lawyers.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:43 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHAIl7_ITE0
Susan Rice gets asked on Meet the Press by David Gregory at about 2:09 if there was a “terrorist element” to it. (
Gregory I think would mean was this done by a pre-existing terrorist group.
She doesn’t directly answer, but gives a description of what she says they think happened.
She said there was a protest about the video, almost a copycat of the one that happened in Cairo, and after that came “opportunistic extremist elements” who came with “readily available” heavy weapons.
Susan Rice wants to compare this to the Satanic verses or the Mohammed cartoons. (like that was not organized?)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:44 pmWhen you’re talking about paramilitary operations? Probably weeks.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:45 pm178. Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 10/18/2012 @ 2:40 pm
Clearly the War Against the Great Satan hasn’t ended, or that Bangladeshi would not have been “entrapped” by the FBI in NYC yesterday.
Someone either knew about him before he came, or informers told the FBI once he tried to recruit people here. The Bangladeshi himself said that none of the imams here were true Moslems.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:46 pmSF: What’s the definition of “premeditated”?
Comment by Dustin — 10/18/2012 @ 2:45 pm
When you’re talking about paramilitary operations? Probably weeks.
That’s not the definition of premeditated. That’s simply the minimum amount of time that would have almost certainly been needed to successfully carry off what they did.
Yes, everybody on the ground knew that this could not have been a matter of a few hours of planning.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 2:59 pmWe also know now maybe the identity of the person who was directing the assault. (the local commander on the ground)
Libya Is Said to Single Out Islamist Leader as Commander in Attack in Benghazi (New York Times Oct 18 2012, page A10)
CAIRO — Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, last month, Libyans involved in the investigation said Wednesday.
Witnesses at the scene of the attack on the American Mission in Benghazi have said they saw Mr. Abu Khattala leading the assault, and his personal involvement is the latest link between the attack and his brigade, Ansar al-Shariah, a puritanical militant group that wants to advance Islamic law in Libya.
The identity and motivation of the assailants have become an intense point of contention in the American presidential campaign. Republicans have sought to tie the attack to Al Qaeda to counter President Obama’s assertion that by killing Osama bin Laden and other leaders his administration had crippled the group; Mr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Shariah share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
But Mr. Abu Khattala’s exact role, or how much of the leadership he shared with others, is not yet clear. His leadership would not rule out participation or encouragement by militants connected to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an Algerian Islamic insurgency that adopted the name of Bin Laden’s group a few years ago to bolster its image, but has so far avoided attacks on Western interests.
I hope Republicans are not saying Al Qaeda, and I don’t think they are.
This is not Al Qaeda – it’s the Moslem Brotherhood, or an offshoot of it, and the whole
attack was probably sponsored by Saudi intelligence, which doesn’t want any kind of a democracy to exist in the Arab world.
And Saudi intelligence is probably also responsible for the bad intelligence Obama and others got.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:00 pmComment by daleyrocks — 10/18/2012 @ 2:40 pm
On Sep. 20, for example, when the administration first began to backtrack, White House spokesman Jay Carney suddenly told reporters that it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack had been a “terrorist attack”–by which he meant specifically that “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
In other words, the attack was “terrorist” because it was violent–but not necessarily because it was carried out by terrorists.”
Right, exactly. And why would there be a different definition of terror on September 12?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/14/The-Big-Lie-Obama-Did-Not-Call-Libya-Attacks-Terrorism-on-September-12
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:08 pmSo you concede it was pre planned? That contradicts what you said a few minutes ago.
You make all these strange assertions.
Your own quote notes Ansar Al Shariah’s involvement (the name is simply ‘supporters of sharia’ in Arabic). Of course, Ansar Al Shariah is a name a lot of jihadist terror cells have been using in recent months. It is considered an alias for Al Qaeda, which was simply a network for cells of jihadists.
Sometimes, Sammy, it’s not clear to me that you read the entirety of the lengthy things you quote, and in almost all cases, it’s not clear why you’re quoting such lengthy passages.
In this case, you superficially intended your huge quote to support your assertion that “this was not Al Qaeda”, when the quote actually shows the opposite.
This argument style makes it difficult to understand what you’re saying, and makes the conversation a bit tedious.
Anyhow, your ‘this was not pre-planned” assertion came from Ansar Al Sharia, in case you weren’t aware of that.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:14 pmWall Street Journal
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:15 pmWhat Happened in Libya? Clearing Up a Fierce Dispute
(again, I’ve replaced the title that is online with the title that’s in the printed paper)
What really happened, I think, is actually it got less accurate with time (as more bad intelligence poured in)
On Sept 14 Carney was saying:
We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.
And on Sept. 16, to quote the New York Times today:
That was on ABC’s This Week, if I am right.
Now you could argue when she says not premeditated, she’s excluding terrorism, but she’s only referring to what this began as, and really means to say that whatever happened was not planned more than a few hours in advance.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:15 pmSammy – Are you getting paid for this?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:18 pmComment by Dustin — 10/18/2012 @ 3:15 pm
Ansar al-Sharia is simply an effort for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, to rebrand itself with the intention of manipulating people to join its cause, the State Department said in a statement.
Wall Street Journal
There really is actually no clear distinction difference between the Moslem Brotherhood and Al Aaeda.
Egyptian Islamic Jihad is a splinter from the Moslem Brotherhood, and it was led by Ayman Al Zawahiri, and it splintered again when it merge3d with Osama bin Laden’s organization.
There’s a certain person in Egypt who is said to now be living Libya and have organzied Ansar al Sharia (not the same person as the commander on the ground in Benghazi) and he is said to have gotten money from Al Qaeda in Yemen.
What’s important is that the connections in Benghazi go east, not west.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:20 pmComment by daleyrocks — 10/18/2012 @ 3:18 pm
Sammy – Are you getting paid for this?
No. And I spe
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:20 pmI spent too much time right now on this. It’s after 6 O’Clock.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:22 pmGood Allah
JD (8a1df4) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:23 pmSF: Will Obama correct his facts, and realize Saudi Arabia and Qatar are no friends of democracy and are actually working against U.S. policy? (He’s making the very same mistake that the Reagan Administration made with regard to Afghanistan in the 1980′s, where Pakistan was allowed to channel the money)
Comment by Milhouse — 10/17/2012 @ 2:05 pm
That was no mistake. Do you really think Reagan was so naïve as to think that Pakistan’s interests were exactly the same as ours, so we should just trust them with the money?! Putting them in charge of the money was their condition for joining the alliance against the Soviets at all, and we couldn’t do it without them. So we gave them the money, knowing that they had their own agenda, but so long as that agenda included getting rid of the Soviets the main goal was being achieved.
He could have bargained harder.
When we armed the Soviets against the Germans, we knew (or ought to have known that they were no friends of ours), but at the time defeating the Germans was the priority, and any complications that would arise later could be dealt with later. Ditto when we brought in the mafia against Mussolini. And ditto with the ISI.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:24 pmAnd I’m sure he didn’t realize what they were really doing.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:25 pmHe didn’t mistrust them that much.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:25 pmCould he? How vital was it to Pakistan to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan? How much did they fear a Soviet-Indian pincer attack against them? It seems to me they didn’t regard that as particularly likely, so merely ousting the Soviets wasn’t a huge priority for them, and they were in a position to bargain with the USA, for whom defeating the USSR in Afghanistan was a huge priority (and ultimately was the greatest factor in the USSR’s fall).
You might as well say that FDR could have bargained harder with Stalin. Winning the war was the priority, and everything else had to come second.
Milhouse (f9ad49) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:49 pmIt’s a stretch, but assuming for the sake of argument the Saudis or some other foreign intel service provided bad intelligence, there was absolutely no reason to give it any credence when it conflicted with so much other intel. Particularly what we would have been getting from the British, who closed their consulate and pulled their people out from Benghazi. And not over some potential “spontaneous film criticism.”
In short, cherry picking the intel that supports the campaign narrative while ignoring the intel that contradicts it is demonstrable proof that the Obama admin was politicizing this from the start.
And it does nothing to refute the fact that Rice and Carney flat out lied to the public, such as Carney’s statement that “We saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a pre-planned or premeditated attack.”
Even if, big if, they had any half-way credible evidence that this was “spontaneous Muslim film criticism,” it doesn’t change the fact that there were mountains of evidence that this was a pre-conceived and well-planned assault.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:51 pmThis is not Al Qaeda – it’s the Moslem Brotherhood, or an offshoot of it, and the whole
attack was probably sponsored by Saudi intelligence, which doesn’t want any kind of a democracy to exist in the Arab world.
And Saudi intelligence is probably also responsible for the bad intelligence Obama and others got.
Really !?!
JD (8a1df4) — 10/18/2012 @ 3:53 pmOf course there isn’t. Al Qaeda isn’t that kind of organization. It’s just a network (as is Answar al Shariah, it’s apparent alias).
But earlier you said:
I’m not trying to pile on, Sammy. I think you mean well. But it is not possible to understand your views.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/18/2012 @ 4:01 pm“And Saudi intelligence is probably also responsible for the bad intelligence Obama and others got.”
Sammy – I think it was Chinese hackers or Iranian moles.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 4:03 pm“What really happened, I think, is actually it got less accurate with time (as more bad intelligence poured in)”
Sammy – What bad intelligence are you talking about?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/18/2012 @ 4:08 pmI linked that long LOC study, which outlines every player except this Khattalah character, with your favorite Doggy Trainer, does say he was a part of another militia(the Abu Obeyda) that was incorporated into Ansar Al Sharia,the report is remarkably thorough in part because it mined the local social media, that should have told us ‘something wicked this way comes’
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/18/2012 @ 4:30 pmSF: This is not Al Qaeda – it’s the Moslem Brotherhood
Comment by Dustin — 10/18/2012 @ 4:01 pm
I’m not trying to pile on, Sammy. I think you mean well. But it is not possible to understand your views.
Probably because I don’t have it completely clear.
There is no Al Qaeda in Egypt. Instead, there are splinters of the Moslem Brotherhood, of which actually actually is one. But in some or most cases th4 separation is false. anytime anybody does anything different, or a little more risky, they separate themselves. All these organizations and their members fade into each other.
I think the attack in Benghazi was done by the same people who did the attack in Cairo, and neither was really sparked by a video. There was no protest whatsoever in Benghazi, both in order to maintain the element of surprise, and because Benghazi is a very pro-American city, and you wouldn’t find very many people to do it..
It was the conspirators who translated the video into Arabic and put it on You Tube and then complained about it.
They actually probably were involved with the video from the very beginning sending money to Nakoula to produce it and writing the script.
Or maybe that was done by some associated group.
The attackers in Cairo and Benghazi were probably put up to it by Saudi intelligence – Saudi Arabia sends lots of money to the Moslem Brotherhood and others.
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2011/12/04/how-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-won-the-election-in-egypt/
Egyptian businessman Naguib Sawiris revealed that Qatar has sent 100 million dollars of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Saudi Arabia denied this reported, but there are many rumors that the Saudi Gulf-State supported the Egyptian Salafis with 4 Billion dollar.
But in interview in newspaper Al-Akhbar, a Salafi leader admitted that the support did not directly came from the Saudi government but though Salafi and Wahabi organisations and associations active in the Gulf-States.
There are probably better sources all pointing to the same thing.
“not directly from the Saudi government” = Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Bandar, or whatever he goes by now (maybe Bander ibin Sultan)
The video was created to make the whole thing look more unplanned, and it worked. A number of different cover stories were generated to explain this attack, but the goal is simply to eliminate U.S. influence.
There is probably a whole bunch of disinformation of various kinds floating around.
Stevens was maybe trying to gather material for use in arguments in the State Department. and what was the Turkish ambassador doing there meeting with him?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/19/2012 @ 12:37 pmYou do realize, Sammy, it’s not supposed to be clear. These people aren’t trying to create nice, neat organizational charts.
They’re trying to make things obscure. They know they’re being hunted.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/19/2012 @ 12:47 pmLots of entries, this will probably get lost in them. On Fox business they played a tape of Candy Crowley interviewing David Axelrod on 30 Sep. She made the same points as Mitt Romney. She pointed out that the administration took forever to call it an act of terror and denied it was until that point. After Axelrod points out the phrase “acts of terror” she goes on to say it was a general statement and not about the actual attack.
In other words she looked, to me, that there is no way that she didn’t know that everything the president said, and that she insisted was true were utterly untrue.
Oh, the video was from her show.
Kal
Kalroy (449c45) — 10/19/2012 @ 8:28 pm