Not Passing the Giggle Test
[guest post by Dana]
Last night, I posted about the newly released State Department documents provided to Judicial Watch via a FOIA request. The focus was on one particular email which clearly showed that White House officials intentionally and willfully planned to spin the jihadi attack on the Benghazi diplomatic compound as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video. Smoking gun. But apparently that email wasn’t what it appeared to be. Instead, according to White House spokesman Jay Carney, it was an email about protests outside embassies in Egypt, Yemen and other countries. Seriously.
Last night I also naively declared about that email, It would appear there is no way to spin any of this. Shame on me, because today Jay Carney did just that.
If you look at the document, that document we’re talking about today was taking [sic] about the overall environment in the Muslim world.
Further,
Officials expected Rice to use a different CIA-drafted memos whenever she was asked about the Sept. 11 attack on the lightly guarded diplomatic site, which killed the U.S. ambassador and a State Department official, Carney said.
So the email was really about answers to questions about other protests in Cairo, Sanaa, and various Muslim capitals, Carney said. In fact, Carney said, that’s why the officials didn’t release the email to congressional investigators who were examining the lead-up to the Benghazi attack on the embassy and a nearby CIA site.
The Sept. 14 memo, which was written by Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama’s top national security spokesman, declared that Rice should emphasize that “these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
And that’s precisely what Rice related in her public comments.
The second page of the email explicitly addresses the Benghazi attack, and includes a proposed answer to a possible question. “What’s your response to [a news report saying that a warning of] the Benghazi attack that was ignored?” said the question. The proposed answer stated “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”
The protests, according to the email, “were sparked by a disgusting and reprehensible video.
Also, the Rhodes memo doesn’t say anything about Rice using the CIA memo when she is questioned about on the Benghazi attack, as claimed by Carney.
For those of you who simply want to get to the bottom of this swirling vortex of lies and contradictions because four Americans died and a seemingly complicit administration must be held accountable, Carney wants you to know that he’s concerned there is an “intense effort to politicize this. … The issue here has always been making sure that what happened in Benghazi can’t happen again.”
In response to Carney’s explanation today, Jill Sutherland Farrell, the communications director at Judicial Watch, gave a snort of derision,
That Carney would imply that the State Department gave us some random document doesn’t pass the giggle test.
–Dana
Note: Sharyl Attkisson’s White House Directed Incorrect Benghazi Narrative is well worth the read.
No words but images fit;
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=argument+clinic&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=5A86B8B9D7810EBAF0CD5A86B8B9D7810EBAF0CD
narciso (3fec35) — 4/30/2014 @ 6:46 pmSince Rhodes’ brother is president of CBS News, don’t expect much to come of this damning email. It’s all good, you haters.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/30/2014 @ 6:59 pmIt is very depressing and disheartening to witness just how blatantly dishonest these people are. They do it because 1) they know they have the media in the bag, 2) they think they can get away with it (they sure have so far) and 3) they truly believe that the country at large is of sub-normal intelligence.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/30/2014 @ 7:31 pma seemingly complicit administration…
Really?
ropelight (e3faca) — 4/30/2014 @ 7:38 pmJay Carney is not talking nonsense.
After the story about the video seemed to get some traction, the jihadists did indeed organize many demonstrations around the world that were quite publicly about the video:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/spread-of-protests-sparked-by-anti-muslim-video.html
The protest in Cairo was indeed, led by people who demanding that sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, be freed.
And in Benghazi there was no protest at all. Just an attack.
But later, it was all about the video.
In Benghazi, the attackers spread rumors that there there had been a peaceful protests at which some demonstrator(s) had been shot, and attracted a crowd, including a stringer for the New York Times.
They found that the attackers had posted guards, who harrangued the crowd about a video.
Now understand there’s no way this could have happened unless jihadists/Moslem brotherhood had been responsible for posting the video in the Internet in the first place!
And, I think, making it in fact.
The video itself was incomprehensible gibberish.
In Pakistan, the U.S. government again was apologizing for the video, or for freedom of religion.
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/crowds-storm-us-consulate-in-pakistan-and-one-dies.html?_r=0
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 7:56 pmGood thing Obama has held those people responsible for the Benghazi attack accountable as he promised.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:01 pmNow, it’s only a matter of time before Carney claims the Benghazi attack didn’t happen on 9/11.
ropelight (e3faca) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:01 pmCruise on over the cnn.com. Not a word.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:02 pmThere is a whole bunch of e-mails that Judicial watch has received.
I don’t have that much respect for Judicial Watch (which used to be the Western Journalism Center) because they abandoned the Vincent Foster case after coming under pressure from the IRS, which as complaining they were focusing on only one thing and that was too partisan.
It’s not just Gary Aldrich – who also had something to say about the Foster case.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:03 pmA lot of this is indeed about all the protests and attacks. That did did include what went on in Cairo and Benghazi, but theer were others that were most definitely about the video.
I think those demonstrations were organized as part of the coverup.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:04 pmThe URL says September 13, but it wsas updated through September 17:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/spread-of-protests-sparked-by-anti-muslim-video.html
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:07 pm==Jay Carney is not talking nonsense.==
Oh Sam. Are you going to muck up this thread with the same old nonsense and obfuscation?
elissa (712a2c) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:11 pm“There is a whole bunch of e-mails that Judicial watch has received.”
Sammy – Most of them are heavily redacted except for the ones summarizing public information.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:15 pmThe late singer/songwriter Tim Hardin said it best where Jay Carney, Obama and the main stream media are concerned. See lyrics below.
If I listen long enough to you
Skeptical Voter (12e67d) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:16 pmI’d find a way to believe that it’s all true
Knowing, that you lied, straight-faced
While I cried
But still I’d look to find a reason to believe
John Hinderacker, whose work and analysis I generally respect says this:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/jay-carney-lies-about-the-benghazi-email.php
elissa (712a2c) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:17 pmthey truly believe that the country at large is of sub-normal intelligence.
Well, in blue America, in true-blue urban America in particular, praying before the altar of Holy Liberalism is a matter of faith. Intelligence takes a back seat to being struck by the holy spirit of touchy-feely (and phony-baloney).
Mark (59e5be) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:20 pm5-
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:31 pmSF got his SUPERSECRETDECODINGRING with that last donation to OFA.
9-
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:33 pmGoal Post Moving Alert!
Does it strike anyone in the media as a little odd that after suing to get them on a FOIA, Judicial Watch was given e-mails that had obviously been witheld and never turned over to the Congress of the United States even after months of subpoenas?
elissa (712a2c) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:40 pm15. The lie Hinderaker talks about is about why these e-mails were not produced before.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 8:51 pmOne good point Hindraker brings out (on april 29) is that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton is anywhere in these e-mails, except as persons statements were being prepared for.
They probably didn’t use these e-mail systems.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 9:00 pmOne thing people tend to keep forgetting is that there were other demonstrations – which weer quite openly about the video – after Sepetmber 11, 2012.
I think these were designed to disguise what had happened in Cairo and Benghazi, becase the Cairo protest had not actually bene about the video, and the Benghazi attack had not been preceded by any kind of protest.
They stopped as soon as they had made their point, because they had no other point except to try to make it look like the later events weer like the earlier ones.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 9:02 pmNow Benjamin Rhodes writes that the goals of Susan Rice’s appearance are:
1) To convey that the U.S. is doing everything it can to protect against [ future attacks ]
2) To underscore these protests – which ones? – all of them! – are rooted in a video.
The alternative they seem to have had in mind here was not al Qaeda, or terrorism or lack of security, but some kind of failure in public relations.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 4/30/2014 @ 9:03 pmit’s so hard to take America seriously anymore
there’s articles with headlines what I see that i know not just two years ago I would’ve clicked on and read with focus and attention
but now cause it’s about an American policy or initiative I think why bother
America is a cowardly diseased fascist whorestate.
Ick.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/30/2014 @ 9:26 pmI think I read that the same email was released to the Congress, though the version Congress received had more redacted sections. Doesn’t this mean that there’s two ‘groups’ that handle these requests, one for Congress and one for the public, in the Executive? Doesn’t this also mean they don’t share records (assuming they keep records)? Is it interesting that Congress got less information? The media should be embarrassed – the administration was more concerned about the Congress’ investigation than the media. Truth to power not so much anymore.
East Bay Jay (a5dac7) — 4/30/2014 @ 10:29 pmThe unredacted email was produced in response to a court order.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 4/30/2014 @ 11:32 pmJudges do not take kindly to having their evidence suppressed (redacted).
Washington Jay meet Bagdad Bob. two leaves off the same branch.
Michael M. Keohane (56439d) — 5/1/2014 @ 3:55 amI note that Party apparatchiks like speech writer Krautscheisster think the Ogabe regime has successfully played out the clock on Benghazi, the BP spill, the Russian Reset, the Fast and Furious drug cartel collaboration, the Benghazi Al Qaeda collaboration, the Egypt MB collaboration, .., that this gives me hope that the chickens are coming home to roost.
The Party of Schtoopid is invariably off target even if I tend to miss the bullseye.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:12 am24. You’re making me into a believer. Is that the right word, I wonder?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:14 amI don’t get this, the Dems wait in ambush for 20 years, if someone has done the right thing, Reich,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:18 amNegroponte, et al,
“I note that Party apparatchiks like speech writer Krautscheisster think the Ogabe regime has successfully played out the clock……….”
gary – What and who the heck are you talking about?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2014 @ 9:36 am31. Daley, you seem to be of the opinion I might want to be understood, and by just anyone.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 9:38 am“Daley, you seem to be of the opinion I might want to be understood, and by just anyone.”
gary – My mistake. I did not realize you were competing with Sammy for the least coherent prize.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2014 @ 9:59 amKrauthammer, formerly a sensible Democrat says the
narciso (3fec35) — 5/1/2014 @ 10:03 amtime is up, on any investigation, I disagree,
25. Comment by East Bay Jay (a5dac7) — 4/30/2014 @ 10:29 pm
I think I read that the same email was released to the Congress, though the version Congress received had more redacted sections.
I didn’t check that, but some of the material that Judicial Watch got was also released last year. I think we may have more names of persons now.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/1/2014 @ 11:21 am31. 34. Krauthammer is too close-minded, and may have been affected by people talking to him.
There is a real scandal here. It’s just not what some people are trying to say.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/1/2014 @ 11:23 amFrom National Review’s “Morning Jolt”
We know that from the e-mail???
We’ve known that all along.
That’s what Mitt Romney didn’t understand and why he got so bamboozled by what Obama said in a debate.
The emails – not the ones now but the ones released before, in May a year ago, show that the White House was interested in “correcting” “disinformation.”
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/1/2014 @ 1:42 pmTommy vietor, former NSC adviser, just finished one more shameless “the important thing is let’s make sure this never happens again” attempt to deflect blame and further the Obama administration’s obfuscation on Benghazi.
Sons a bitches.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 3:22 pmJay Carney… if you’re lying, may God strike you dumb.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 4:03 pmI think some of you guys don’t like Jay Carney because he’s white. Or something.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/1/2014 @ 4:10 pmThe Prez was MIA that night.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/boom-tommy-vietor-former-nsa-spokesman-admits-obama-never-made-it-to-situation-room-during-benghazi-attack-video/
elissa (dc627d) — 5/1/2014 @ 5:04 pmGive the Prez a break, after a hard day on the links, it is tough to ask him to climb a flight of stairs – oh, wait.
felipe (098e97) — 5/1/2014 @ 5:11 pmVietor: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.
Can you imagine the media uproar if a republican had said this?
felipe (098e97) — 5/1/2014 @ 5:25 pmDude… it was like 2 years ago! What difference, at this point, does it make?
ColonelHaiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 5:30 pmTommy “Boy” Vietor… #LittleShaver
ColonelHaiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 5:31 pmI just thought the Vietor reference to a tracking device was strange in and of itself, felipe. Makes you wonder if the president is ell known in that circle for “disappearing” and not being able to be found sometimes. Very strange.
elissa (dc627d) — 5/1/2014 @ 5:32 pm33. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I’ll be home before ye.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/1/2014 @ 6:59 pm“That’s what Mitt Romney didn’t understand and why he got so bamboozled by what Obama said in a debate.”
Sammy – No. Obama tried to claim he called the Benghazi attack terrorism during his remarks in the Rose Garden when the phrase he actually used was “an act of terror.” Carney was making the same distinction for weeks. Romney knew exactly what Obama said. Candy Crowley unfortunately stuck her fat face in the middle of the debate and stuck up for the president’s lie.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:00 pmIowahawk has the number of this crew;
@TVietor08 don’t worry, you’re young enough to make a career change. Have you looked into bartender school?
narciso (3fec35) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:05 pmHey Tommy Vietor… duuuude… sometimes you eat the Baier… usually the Baier eats you.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:48 pm“And what was all that sh*t about Benghazi? WTF has anything got to do with Benghazi? WTF are you talking about?”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 8:03 pm– Tommy “Dude” Vietor
“That’s what Mitt Romney didn’t understand and why he got so bamboozled by what Obama said in a debate.”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2014 @ 7:00 pm
Sammy – No. Obama tried to claim he called the Benghazi attack terrorism during his remarks in the Rose Garden when the phrase he actually used was “an act of terror.”
It’s true enough that on September 12, 2012, Barack Obama was not that explicit, and he left himself wiggle room for the Benghazi attack not to be considered an act of terror, and certainly for it not to be planned in advance by an active terrorist group.
But, still it was quite a bit stronger than what the Administration was saying later that week.
And had Romney understood what was went on the first week, he wouldn’t have been so flummoxed by it, because he was operating undr a theory that the statements of the Adminsitration got better with time.
The whole point is it got worse, and it was at variance with what everybody knew. That’s what created the problem for Susan Rice, not taht her statements were canned, because canneedd statements only mean that the interviewee is limited in what they can or are willing to say, not that what they are saying is fundamentally wrong.
Everyone, except the White House, knew or felt it was fundamentally wrong to say this was spontaneous. The White House, however, relied on SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE vouched for by the CIA.
The real scandal is at the CIA and not at the White House, except for incredible hands-off attitude or toleration of what are at best, monumental blunders at the CIA, that has been the attitude of Barack Obama. (partially because of his extreme caution in making any decisionns that aren’t politically motivated.)
Susan Roce did not make it up when she said she was relying on “best available information.” That’s exactly what the CIA said it was.
Except, of course, it wasn’t the best available information. It must have been highly rated SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE, though, to overcome earlier assumptions.
If the President, or anybody in the White House, like Clapper say, had TOLD the CIA to invent an idea out of whole cloth, we’d be surely getting anonymously sourced leaks about it, and we haven’t.
But we have gotten other leaks attributed to people in the CIA, some defending this and some lambasting what the CIA concluded.
But none saying the notion of a spontaneous and unplanned assault came from some place else in the U.S. federal government.
Every single person who spoke to the press, on the record, and off the record, by name or anonymously, and every single e-mail, agrees on this: the claim came from the CIA.
But some people want to say Susan Rice and the ones who sent her, knew she was telling something untrue. If she had know, she never would have done it, because it was something that wa snot only false, it was known to be false, except in the bubble inside the White House.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 7:55 amCarney was making the same distinction for weeks.
Carney was making a distinction between something being a terrorist act, and something being done by a terrorist group.
Acording to Carney, even if it wasn’t done by a terrorist group, it still could legitimately be called a terrorist act, and therefore, the later statements emanating from the Adminstration the week of Sept 11, 2012 did not contradict the earlier ones.
Romney knew exactly what Obama said.
If he did, he would have answered him right on the spot. He didn’t even understand it after the debate. He just got scared of saying anything on the whole subject matter.
If Romeny had followed all of this in detail, or had at least had an adviser who could alert him to the facts, he would have been prepared the next time, when Bob Schieffer lobbed a softball question about Benghazi to him, and he dodged it.
And had Obama said something like that again, or even without waiting for it, he could have cited Carney to prove that the initial statement wasn’t really a declaration that it was planned by any organized terrorist group – and, more important, that the statements had gotten more inaccurate with time, something I think Romney just not even have a clue about.
Candy Crowley unfortunately stuck her fat face in the middle of the debate and stuck up for the president’s lie.
If Romney had known what Obama was talking about, he could have answered her. And if he had found out after the debate, he could have mentioed that the next time it came up and in his speeches.
But Romney not only didn’t know himself, he didn’t have any competent person following this issue.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:07 am“Carney was making a distinction between something being a terrorist act, and something being done by a terrorist group.
Acording to Carney, even if it wasn’t done by a terrorist group, it still could legitimately be called a terrorist act”
Sammy – The White House would not use the word terrorism until after Obama addressed the U.N. That’s why they continued the stupid Clintonian word parsing. We have been over this many times. When Obama claimed he called the attack terrorism on 9/12 he was flat out lying, no ifs, ands or buts. Then Candy Crowley supported him.
You can make the argument that Romney should have pushed back harder, but without notes from which to pull Obama’s exact words, how is he going to win a 2 against 1 argument during a debate. Remember that Crowley later admitted she was wrong.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:24 am38.Comment by Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2014 @ 3:22 pm
Tommy vietor, former NSC adviser, just finished one more shameless “the important thing is let’s make sure this never happens again” attempt to deflect blame and further the Obama administration’s obfuscation on Benghazi.
Sons a bitches.
He’s hiding the scandal – which is , however, one of monumental incompetence and passivity in the White House about something terribly wrong at the CIA.
Tommy Vietor, yes.
Tommy Vietor, who wrote in an e-mail time stamped 8:43 P.M. Friday, September 14, 2012 addressed to Jacob J Sullivan [Assistant to the Vice President for Foreign Affairs, I think] and
Benjamin J. Rhodes , and released last year, which nobody seems to have noticed but me:
http://i42.tinypic.com/2u8e98x.jpg
This message was itself a reply to something Jacob J Sullivan had written at 8:40 PM:
The reply, did not explain the contents, but did say, in other words, that this was needed to correct the “disinformation” that the attack was planned and not spontaneous!!
Now you can believe he knew it was a lie, and was even circulating the lie to some people inside the White House in what would be normally be expected to be e-mail that would not be released for years, if at all, or you can believe that he thought that it the truth that the attack was not premeditated.
For understandable political and practical reasons they wanted to “correct the record.”
If they had thought this would all fall flat they never would have done it.
It is important to understand that everybody outside the White House bubble understood it was highly unlikely, at least, that the attack was not premeditated, but at the White House they did believe that, because of assurances from the CIA based on SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.
Because the intelligence was SOOPER SEKRIT, we still haven’t heard any details.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:25 am==If Romney had known what Obama was talking about, he could have answered her. And if he had found out after the debate, he could have mentioed that the next time it came up and in his speeches.But Romney not only didn’t know himself, he didn’t have any competent person following this issue.==
Sammy, you personally have absolutely no idea or knowledge about what Romney knew or did not know. You have absolutely no facts or knowledge about what the White House knew or did not know. Yet you continue to write strange epistles here as if you are privy to all kinds of insider information. You create and imagine scenarios and then argue to the death as if they are true. These flights of fantasy of yours appear to be getting more frequent and more pronounced, I am sorry to note. I think many people here try to be kind and give you leeway. But due to your recent obsessive thread jacks you are seriously trying the patience of those of us who have tried to be in your corner even when you go off the rails. Do you understand at all what I’m trying to convey to you?
elissa (dc627d) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:28 am” Remember that Crowley later admitted she was wrong.”
Too late, the pig was already out of the pigpen.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:42 amComment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:24 am
We have been over this many times. When Obama claimed he called the attack terrorism on 9/12 he was flat out lying, no ifs, ands or buts. Then Candy Crowley supported him.
It was a half truth.
What Obama had done on September 12, I think, was speak about terrorism, without saying that anything in particular that had happened on September 11, 2012, was terrorism.
It is a half truth, because normally people would understand him to have been saying that the attack on September 11, 2012 was terrorism.
But Obama’s careful choice of words, left him some wiggle room, about this not be a terrorist attack.
Why do think he was so careful? Why did he want this wiggle room?
A. Because Obama was already hearing that it might have been spontaneous, and that the attackers might have had no connection to anybody outside of Libya.
As time went on that week, and as more SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE came in, from the Saudis, or Qatar, or sources in Libya, the CIA’s statements got more and more confident that it was spontaneous.
And then finally the White House went public with that.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:51 am“And if he had found out after the debate, he could have mentioed that the next time it came up and in his speeches.”
Sammy – That’s a strategy question. Bringing it up after looks like sour grapes and whining, which are major Obama tactics. Knowledgeable people understood what happened. They could believe Obama would tell such a blatant lie in a national debate and the expression on Romney’s face showed he could not either. Explaining it afterward through a hostile media is a low percentage proposition and just looks like childish whining.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:51 am“And if he had found out after the debate, he could have mentioed that the next time it came up and in his speeches.”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:51 am
Sammy – That’s a strategy question. Bringing it up after looks like sour grapes and whining, which are major Obama tactics.
That’s the kind of mistake Newt Gingrich made in 1995, when he let Clinton win the debate and discussion of who was responsible for teh government shutdown.
Since when is it a great idea for teh Republican Party to take political advoce from Charles Schumer?
But I think actually somethinbg else was involved. Romney did not consider himself competent to discuss this issue. Don’t overrate Romney’s competence.
Knowledgeable people understood what happened. They could believe Obama would tell such a blatant lie in a national debate and the expression on Romney’s face showed he could not either.
Rpmney thought it was a lie, but it wasn’t sucha big lie. Obama had really said what to any reasonable person would sound like he had said it was an act of terror.
Explaining it afterward through a hostile media is a low percentage proposition and just looks like childish whining.
Then he should just give up and not run for President.
I think Romney didn’t say anything more because he didn’t understand it, and/or thought Obama was too good a debater.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:57 amYou can make the argument that Romney should have pushed back harder, but without notes from which to pull Obama’s exact words, how is he going to win a 2 against 1 argument during a debate.
Yes, he might have been stuck then, because he hadn’t familiarized himself or expected that he should know what Obama had said on Sept 12 – when Romney tried to get Obama on the record to say that he had said it was an act of terror, and had said that it was not a spontaneous demonstration – the actually quite good lawyer Barack Obama – in his first real case! – told him to get the transcript.
Of course, Romney couldn’t stop the debate to do that, but the really bad thing is, Romney just gave up on understanding what had happened.
Not only did he not understand it himself, he didn’t have anybody on his staff who did, either.
I don’t think this was a matter of not wanting to belabor the point or sound like a whiner.
In the last debate Bob Schieffer issued him an open invitation to talk about this, but he was just afraid of the whole matter.
Remember that Crowley later admitted she was wrong.
She said that Romney was right on the main thing (about the administration having claimed it was spontaneous, and because of a video) but had used the wrong word, and I think what she means here is that Romney had attacked Obama on the wrong point, or focused on the wrong point, saying he had not called it an act of terror.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-romney-was-right-in-the-main-on-benghazi-but-picked-the-wrong-word-in-debate/
Now strictly speaking, in fact Obama had not called it an “act of terror” but he came close, and that’s how his words would have normally been interpreted.
Later, Carney was to argue a spontaneous attack (which was said later that week) was not inconsistent with it being terrorism.)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-romney-was-right-in-the-main-on-benghazi-but-picked-the-wrong-word-in-debate/
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:00 am57. Daleyrocks: ” Remember that Crowley later admitted she was wrong.”
Comment by Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:42 am
Too late, the pig was already out of the pigpen.
It, of course, did not get the attention that the original debate did, and probably nobody who didn’t know there was something badly wrong with what the administration had said about Benghazi even heard this.
Candy Crowley didn’t say she was wrong about what Obama had said on September 12 – she said Romney was right in the main thrust of his attack.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:02 am==If Romney had known what Obama was talking about, he could have answered her. And if he had found out after the debate, he could have mentioed that the next time it came up and in his speeches.But Romney not only didn’t know himself, he didn’t have any competent person following this issue.==
Comment by elissa (dc627d) — 5/2/2014 @ 8:28 am
Sammy, you personally have absolutely no idea or knowledge about what Romney knew or did not know.
You have to use a little common sense.
Romney never gave any sign that he felt competent to discuss this matter, after Obama had disagreed with him in a debate.
You have absolutely no facts or knowledge about what the White House knew or did not know.
That is obvious, too.
Yet you continue to write strange epistles here as if you are privy to all kinds of insider information.
Everybody else does. They insist they know they were telling something untrue. All the evidence indicates otherwise.
You create and imagine scenarios and then argue to the death as if they are true.
Once something has been established to my saisfaction, it tends to stay established. I change my mind most often early in my gathering of information.
After I saw Anita Hill’s and Clarence Thomas’s testimony, I had very little doubt she was not telling the truth, although at first I had tended to think she was.
Sammy Finkelman (0f2215) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:09 am“Candy Crowley didn’t say she was wrong about what Obama had said on September 12 – she said Romney was right in the main thrust of his attack.”
Sammy – You can delete 95% of what you have written above today because it’s irrelevant and nonresponsive as usual. The relevant question related to the presidential debate is whether Obama called the Benghazi attack terrorism or involving terrorists on 9/12. It’s not a question of what anybody knew. The clear answer is “no.”
You can look at Jay Carney’s press briefing to see how he defines an “act of terror.”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:12 am“You have to use a little
common sensecreative azzpull.”There, FIFY.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:14 am“You have to use a little common sense.”
Sammy – Let me know when you acquire some on this subject.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:16 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-MlXmXPe-4#t=10
That’s a lot of gross tonnage on the hoof at about the 47 second mark.
Steve57 (525198) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:28 am66. Cool. Looks like mostly Belgians.
I’m more partial to the flouncy carriage displays, the horse will actually yell at you in the audience if you’re not paying close enough attention.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:33 amThanks to Bill DeBlasio the price of carriage horses just went down.
But if you ever had anything to do with horses you know the real killer isn’t the purchase price.
Steve57 (525198) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:37 amComment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2014 @ 9:12 am
He said something that could be taken both ways, but when he spoke about “acts of terror” most people (including Candy Crowley) would understand it to be a reference to what took place in Benghazi. (Later Jay Carney would argue that calling that an “act of terror” would be consistent even with a spontaneous, unplanned attack.)
The key point is that the CIA and the administration revised its position in the direction of no involvement by any terrorist group as the week went on.
They got less accurate, not more accurate, with time. Romney did not understand this. Yesterday, John Sexton at Breitbart, did not seem to understand this.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/6/2014 @ 11:58 am