Well, my senator Debbie Stabenow (D) is dangerously incompetent. In Obama's case, probably both.
No, not a photoshop. That was on CSPAN.
Posted on 10/16/2012 9:41:04 PM PDT by dervish
I wish Romney would just have said, “ There are only two ways this could have gone down.. Your administration purposely lied, or they are completely incompetent...Mr. President, which one is it?
Well, my senator Debbie Stabenow (D) is dangerously incompetent. In Obama's case, probably both.
No, not a photoshop. That was on CSPAN.
If Obama really believed that Benghazi was a terrorist attack... then why did he jet off to a fundraiser the next morning?
Pretty damn sad that America can’t even beg it’s president to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack. He’s obviously protecting his Muslim brothers and thwarting the war on terror that America SHOULD be fighting. Traitorous bastard.
Obama was still blaming the film producer and the riots for a good 3 weeks after the ambassador and three others were killed.
Why did he blame it on a video?
Because he could not have the nation focus on the crowd chanting: “We are all Osama’s, Obama.” It would have brought the attention on him spiking the football and on the DNC’s “GM is alive, Osama is dead.”
In the nation’s eyes his foreign policy would have been in shambles, the mantra ‘Al Quaeda is dead” would have looked foolish during a very emotional time for the nation.
When Obama speaks ex cathedra, it is more than a simple lie. It becomes infallible doctrine that must be adopted by the entire party in order to preserve the fiction that Barack Obama is intelligent, truthful, and competent to be President.
An example of this type of statement is when he said in an early Democrat Primary debate in 2008 that he would talk directly with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that by doing so, he could defuse Irans nuclear and terror export programs. Instead of walking this statement back the next day, he enshrined this error as a cornerstone of his campaign and it became the fundamental weakness of his Presidential foreign policy.
Another example of this is his oft repeated promise that "If you like your doctor, you can keep him!" This was clearly and demonstrably not true under Obamacare, and the inability of the patient to continue current arrangements remains one of the primary reasons people resist the implementation of the rule. But Obama made this statement so absolutely and so emphatically that every Democrat was required to pretend it was true.
And now we come to his statement in last night's debate, full of bluster and high dungeon, that the suggestion that anybody in his team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, or anybody else, would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, is offensive, and not what he does as President or Commander in Chief. This statement now becomes the new Reality According to Barack Obama. Unfortunately for the President, it is easily contradicted by any of a thousand easily verifiable sources. Defending this statement is going to lead to endless contradiction and will only make the President look like even more of a manipulative liar.
Either that, or 0bama and his minions are lying their asses off!
Which do you think is the truth?
Can this be sourced?
Crowley didn’t he worst job I have ever seen.
No wonder CNN has lost viewers, even their top person does nto know the facts.
The questions she chose was awful gun control, another woman blamed it on Bush for the last 4 years, another question on women’s pay, WTH,.
he lied about tax cuts, he lied about drilling , he lied about Libya, he just lied all night and where was Crowley then?
did you even where those cheers came from.
look at the viedo of the debate and look at that time.
The camera pans overhead and right overhead you see a black woman with a pink dress on with two others and yes it was Michelle obama clapping nad cheering when Crowlet jumped in to help her husband
Crowley did the worst job I have ever seen.
No wonder CNN has lost viewers, even their top person does nto know the facts.
The questions she chose was awful gun control, another woman blamed it on Bush for the last 4 years, another question on women’s pay, WTH,.
he lied about tax cuts, he lied about drilling , he lied about Libya, he just lied all night and where was Crowley then?
Not only this, but your whole synopsis is clear as a bell and extraordinarily precise. Very good analysis, if I had an award to give, I would give it to you!
Can this be sourced?
Ok, found it Here
She needs to make amends for this big time! If she doesn't come out today and just be all over the place with a "CORRECTION" and an apology for "Thrusting" herself into the debate, taking sides, and trying to embarrass her opposition, then she will ever be known as just a SCUMBAG! Of course, that moniker has probably been "Thrust" on her already!
Referring to Romney I guess, WTF does she mean by:
He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded.
What "Word" is she referring too? Also, this little conundrum she's gonna create with this:
She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.
Her instinct was to side with Obama even though Romney had the right "thrust?" This statement makes her look even more like a complete moronic, biased, Obama confidant!
Folks, this was a set up and it's going to blow up on Obama!
234? |
I think the media, in this case Crowley, took her talking points from David Axelrod.
By the time Axelrod said this, it was clear that Obama had been caught lying about what happened in Libya, and Axelrod fashioned another lie to cover Obama.
While I have some regrets about how Gov Romney handled this question, I think it sets up the third and final debate perfectly. Everything Romney left on the table last night can be used in the foreign policy debate. That debate will be the voters’ last impression.
Can anybody dig up any WH press pool questions to Jay Carney about whether they President calls it an ‘act of terror’ immediately after the attack? What did Jay Carney say?
As a pastor and bible teacher, the first thing you teach people is NOT to cherry-pick verses, but to put them in context. At a MINIMUM, you look at a few verses before and a few verses afterward.
We are brought into that video excerpt right at the sentence that uses the word “terror”. (Which, incidentally, is a far cry from saying “last night's act of terrorism”).
If that was the first sentence in the speech, then fine. But, it doesn't strike me that way. It doesn't sound like an opening sentence.
I want a transcript for that entire rose garden speech.
We will then place that in its real context, the administration's 2 weeks of going from TV outlets to the UN pulpit to proclaim that Benghazi was caused by a stupid, unknown video trailer.
Questions that must be answered:
Who sent the administration officials out to claim it was the result of a video?
Who made the decision to hide that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act?
Who decided misrepresenting their deaths to the families of our slain officials was ethical? How is this thoughtless decision different than hiding the true nature of NFL star, Pat Tilman’s death when he was killed in Afghanistan?
The larger question, though, is NOT the officials’ claiming “video based attack”. The larger question is the administration's lost grip on foreign policy.
How do we justify saying Al Qaeda is terminally wounded?
How do we defend that “Arab spring” is not, in reality, “mob rule”. Mob rule is not “democracy” as we Americans believe democracy to be defined. We believe, as did our Founders, that true democracy is “representation by the thoughtful and wise” who are themselves elected by thoughtful and wise citizens or, in the case of the president, by thoughtful wise electors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.