I would say, though, that on a few occasions, Romney used his turn to question Obama, thus ceding some time. But on the other hand, Obama interrupted Romney repeatedly. Not that Romney didn't interrupt. It seemed as though there was a continual insertion of factual disagreements. That's what they were doing and once it got started it was hard for either one stop, because it would give the other guy an advantage... except to the extent there are voters out there who recognize and credit politeness.
I wonder what would have happened, during the part of the debate about Benghazi, if Candy Crowley had not intervened. What if she'd kept her mouth shut and let the 2 men work it out amongst themselves? Here's the segment of the transcript in question (boldface added):
OBAMA: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime....
Checking afterwards, we learned that Obama never came out and said "this was an act of terror," though he did at one point say "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," so there's a factual assertion here that's going to come into question, and it's subtle enough that Obama can think he'll get away with saying that, but Romney feels sure Obama is making a misstatement.
ROMNEY: Yes, I — I...Did he really not hear her, or did he want even more support from her? Whatever... she seems to have felt impelled to throw a little help to Romney, to appear more even-handed:
CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.
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.Obama calls out to Candy for a ruling on what the facts are! She should have taken that as a cue to keep quiet and let the drama play out. It would have been a chance to see how the 2 men differ in their ability to resolve interpersonal conflict.
ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
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 —You're interrupting is what you're doing. He's all about breaking Romney's stride at this point, and Candy will help him.
OBAMA: Candy, I'm —
ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous —All of these wonderful folks. Wow. Candy and Obama double-teamed Romney and shut him down. Crowley introduces the next questioner.
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.
পোস্টগুলি
৪০৪টি মন্তব্য:
404 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»If Crowley had not intervened Romney would have exposed Obama as a blustering liar and fool.
Which, of course, is WHY she intervened.
Well, she really earned her salary there. That's what they pay her to do.
Yes, it's just a coincidence that the Democrat got more time in all three debates. And it's just a coincidence that the questions last night were 2:1 more favorable to Obama. It's just a coincidence that the moderator allowed the Democrat to interrupt the Republican repeatedly, except when (by coincidence) the moderator himself/herself did the interrupting. And it's just a coincidence that liberal media types were selected as moderators for all 4 debates.
And if you truly believe all of those things were a coincidence, then you're dumb enough to be an Obama supporter.
How exactly can we get a non-partisan or at least non-participatory moderator? Should we go for a cyborg in 2016 that can be programmed to handle things in a neutral fashion? WTF?
Won't relitigate the "act of terror" issue, but you're wrong about the double-teaming afterwards. Mitt was way over his time and was trying to bulldoze his way into getting yet another reply. Several times earlier in the debate, Mitt had done that successfully; Candy just didn't seem to have the ability to shut him up. This time, Obama helped make sure that she would enforce the rules. Surely if one candidate goes over, the other candidate is allowed to appeal to moderator to shut him up.
Other times Crowley thought we should move on: Talking about gas prices, oil/gas leases, Obama's China/Cayman Islands money.
Funny how we never needed to move on when Romney was in an uncomfortable spot.
AF: Obama spoke about 11% more than Romney, and continually interrupted him; Crowley interrupted Romney nearly 30 times; Obama barely 10. It is idiotic, at this point, to even pretend Romney (or Ryan) got a fair shake in these debates, yet they fought to a draw in the last two and trounced in the first.
Also: Obama got the first and last word with nearly every question, while Romney only got that luxury two or three times.
"All of these wonderful folks. Wow. Candy and Obama double-teamed Romney and shut him down. Crowley introduces the next questioner."
Isn't it exceedingly obvious by now Romney had to debate two opponents last night?
In that light, his narrow loss/draw/narrow win (depending upon which poll one cites) is even more impressive.
No matter though.
Most of those who voted for Obama in '08 will prove largely immune to Obama's failures, so we just have to hope enough of them in enough key states can figure it out.
So far, in the debates, the girls have helped the Dems, whild the guy let the candidates talk.
The last debate, while nominally moderated by a guy, well, he's really a girly type, so will also help Zero.
Really, Republicans deserve to lose all elections forever for letting these idjits act as moderators. Why do they agree to this? Do they have a death wish?
"Mitt was way over his time and was trying to bulldoze his way into getting yet another reply. Several times earlier in the debate, Mitt had done that successfully; Candy just didn't seem to have the ability to shut him up. This time, Obama helped make sure that she would enforce the rules. Surely if one candidate goes over, the other candidate is allowed to appeal to moderator to shut him up."
Weren't they in the back and forth discussion at that point? If he was going over his time so effectively, how is it that Obama got more than 3 minutes more time.
I do agree that Romney powered over Crowley a few times in the beginning. As in the first debate, he knew he had a moderator who skewed Democratic, and he had a way to establish dominance, which was working really well to make him seem "presidential."
By contrast, Obama seemed beta, calling out "Candy?"
I agree that some of what Crowley did was based on wanting to get to more of the questioners.
Neither candidate seemed to care much about the stiff, stilted citizens who'd been cherry-picked for the audience. Nor did I.
I would be more interested in how many times the moderator interrupted each candidate.
Seems to me Crowley butted in far more to try shutting Romney off than butting in to interrupt her Barack.
As for Candy "earning her pay"...I think use of journalists, many with political bias or an overinflated sense of their own importance (see C Crowley) are not the ideal place to find good moderators.
There are people that are trained to be impartial hearers of facts while keeping the "sides" within rules and time constraints.
We call them judges.
We call them college debate judges.
We call them distinguished civic-minded individuals - the sort of retired officials, ex-military officers, university provosts, well-regarded doctors, Lions Club Presidents.
The sort you see moderating debates in towns and states, not "famous journalists".
A friend commented that "Despite having two debate opponents, Romney managage a tie, or a slight win."
After this year, the 2016 Republican field of candidates/Romney needs to insist on a much harsher control of the debates. The Obama/McCain debates were not nearly this bad. But this has been an embarrassment. I almost am reconsidering my opinion of Lehrer and thinking he actually did a passable job, only because he didn't totally screw it up as bad as Raddatz and Crowley.
Why not even up the debates. How about this: get Crowley or whomever to ask the Republican questions and then get someone like Limbaugh to ask the Democrat questions.
I disliked the first debate format and I really disliked last night's format too. It was annoying. What I'd give for a Lincoln/Douglas style debate where the opposing politicians have time to lay out their positions instead of the jejune zinger and gotcha' back and forth tv. Stick a fork in the debates. They're done.
...how is it that Obama got more than 3 minutes more time?
The "uh...uh...uh" allowance might account for that.
Also, can we comment on the audience? Who is undecided? Especially in NYC?! What kind of people are these? There must be all kinds of motives going on.
The Quayle Debate Format is that there are two candidates and two clocks.
When they're talking, their clock is running, even if they are talking over each other.
When their clock runs out, their mic is shut off.
No moderator. No answer time limits. No benefit for talking over the other person.
Each person gets 45 minutes to talk, period.
The first questioner (Jeremy) seems like he may pull the lever for Romney after all, judging by his comments.
"If he was going over his time so effectively, how is it that Obama got more than 3 minutes more time."
Romney was insisting on surreplies, which is different than just going over time. As you mentioned, he chose on several occasions -- including this one -- to use his time to direct supposedly "gotcha" questions at Obama. Having done that, and with his time expired, he wasn't entitled to get the floor back, but that's what he kept trying to do, often successfully. This time, Obama wasn't having it.
Next debate, we need a CLOCK in each bottom corner of the screen ... or, alternatively, I'll set a pair of stop watchs on a Ustream (live video stream) and keep them updated throughout the dabate ...
Quayle that's pretty ingenious. Even if it isn't practical. Thumbs up.
To follow up Matthew and AF:
Yes Obama got the last word one on almost every topic. Crowley kept saying "you'll have time governor" but -- check the transcript -- she would let Obama finish and go on to a new topic. Why was Obama allowed anb extra minute-plus for follow-up? And Mitt never asked Crowley to move on or "check the timekeeper" like Obama did.
That being said, depsite the bias the last two debates were, at best, a draw. Biden and Obama gained nothing from their last two performances other than saving face in front of their media friends. My favorite moment was about a third of the way in when Obama tried to interupt Romney's rebuttal, then the President mumbled, "I'm used to being ignored..." and then some kind of non-verbal utternace that sounded like "aaah-ayee" that just trailed off into a sad snort as he sat back down. THAT would be in an ad today if I was a GOP operative. The Leader of the Free World just deflated because he couldn't bully the opposition at will.
AF: Romney is entitled to replies. Believe it or not, in a debate, both sides get to respond, not just the side you want to win.
"AF: Romney is entitled to replies. Believe it or not, in a debate, both sides get to respond, not just the side you want to win."
One reply. He kept trying to get more.
Also, remember that Obama was just eye candy.
The assertion that this attack was caused by a video did not originate from the event at Benghazi.
Since the NY Times finally decided to write about the attack, I've discovered in a series of articles where the assertion that the attack was caused by a video originated.
The Jihadis have a general grievance against an uncensored YouTube that they invariably cite as their reason for just about all their actions. Numerous, unrelated videos have been cited for years as the cause of Jihadi fury over blasphemy.
It's clear to me that Obama seized upon this as a pretext to cover-up his malfeasance at Benghazi. He counted on a compliant press to assist him.
Yes, the Jihadis have a bitch about what they consider blasphemous videos on YouTube. That's been going on for a long time, entirely independent of Benghazi.
AF: At which point? Would it be one of the times he was interrupted (while still behind on time), when Obama stammered with uhs and ums while he was trying to talk, or would it be at one of the many points he wasn't granted a response at all?
You're speaking in generalities about a situation where, if it happened, was exceedingly rare. It would be helpful if you were specific.
First question, after both candidates have had their answers and follow-ups, Romney steals a surreply:
CROWLEY: Mr. President, the next question is going to be for you here.
And, Mr. Romney — Governor Romney — there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to...
ROMNEY: That — that Detroit — that Detroit answer...
CROWLEY: We have all these folks.
ROMNEY: ... that Detroit answer...
CROWLEY: I will let you absolutely...
ROMNEY: ... and the rest of the answer, way off the mark.
If Crowley had not intervened...
So I guess what y'all are saying is Obama won.
Second question: Romney uses his time to cross-examine Obama:
ROMNEY: But that's not what you've done in the last four years. That's the problem. In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.
OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.
ROMNEY: So how much did you cut (inaudible)?
OBAMA: Not true.
ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by, then?
OBAMA: Governor, we have actually produced more oil —
ROMNEY: No, no. How much did you cut licenses and permits on federal land and federal waters?
AF: That was a question where Romney responded first, Obama replied, Romney should have had the closing word. That is not what happened. If Crowley is going to let Obama break the rules and hit again, Romney is entitled to defend himself.
See why it is important to provide examples? It helps show why you're wrong.
Third question: Romney argues with Candy that he should get an additional reply to the second follow-up question, and when Crowley says no, he takes it anyway:
CROWLEY: I got to — I got to move you on —
ROMNEY: He gets the first —
CROWLEY: — and the next question —
ROMNEY: He actually got —
CROWLEY: — for you —
ROMNEY: He actually got the first question. So I get the last question — last answer —
CROWLEY: (Inaudible) in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to.
And the next question is for you. So if you want to, you know, continue on — but I don't want to leave all —
ROMNEY: Candy, Candy —
CROWLEY: — sitting here —
ROMNEY: Candy, I don't have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they're not phantom jobs. They're real jobs.
CROWLEY: OK.
ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I'm going to make sure —
CROWLEY: OK.
ROMNEY: — we're taking advantage of our energy resources. We'll bring back manufacturing to America. We're going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 31/2 million more jobs in this country. It's critical to our future.
What I found paricularly galling was Obama's practically-hissed "please proceed, Governor" non-answer answer to a direct question.
Come to think of it, it was an answer: "you caught me, so f*cking what."
Mitt was way over his time
...explains why he spoke for less time...again.
...was trying to bulldoze his way into getting yet another reply.
...explains why he spoke for less time...again.
Several times earlier in the debate, Mitt had done that successfully; Candy just didn't seem to have the ability to shut him up.
...explains why he spoke for less time...again.
This time, Obama helped make sure that she would enforce the rules. Surely if one candidate goes over, the other candidate is allowed to appeal to moderator to shut him up.
...explains why he spoke for less time...again.
You have a little problem with reality killing your narrative.
Neither candidate seemed to care much about the stiff, stilted citizens who'd been cherry-picked for the audience. Nor did I.
The "town hall" debate format cannot possibly die quickly enough.
I would be more interested in how many times the moderator interrupted each candidate.
Romney about 30 times. Obama about 10.
I almost am reconsidering my opinion of Lehrer and thinking he actually did a passable job, only because he didn't totally screw it up as bad as Raddatz and Crowley.
Lehrer did OK. Honestly, a moderator should always err on the side of letting the participants speak.
To clarify: It usually goes:
Person 1 answers; Person 2 responds; Person 1 gets to close; next question goes to Person 2, repeat.
In this case, question was asked. Romney answered; Obama responded. Romney closed. Crowley then pitched -back- to Obama. Romney is perfectly in his rights to reply again since we've deviated from the script.
I listened to the debate on the radio. I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh and was surprised to learn that Candy had a copy of the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech at her fingertips and that when Obama said "check the transcript", that Candy did just that and provided Obama with the answer he was looking for! Why did she have the transcript with her?
The MSM suicide is painful to watch.
I no longer believe anything that Obama says. Nothing. I believe nothing from the Bureau of Labor Statistics either. I no longer have any faith in my government, and assume most of what it tells me is bullshit.
But I also do not trust anything the leftist press says.
Not one word.
I assume it's a lie or in service to a lie, and I usually discover I am right.
Crowley doesn't even recognize that what she did was outrageous.
It's all PRAVDA propaganda, so there's no reason to read it or watch it. That's why CNN and the NYTimes are dying.
Good. They should burn in hell.
ROMNEY: But that's not what you've done in the last four years. That's the problem. In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.
OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.
...ironically, it IS true. He has killed production on federal lands. Lawsuits had to be filed to re-open the Gulf.
That's on the energy issue, where it turns out Romney was right, Obama was wrong. That's another question that spun out of control with Crowley losing control and not asserting authority until Obama was losing. It should have been cut off much earlier; by letting Obama throw out accusations and then closing off Romney's response, Crowley was being unfair. If you let an attack like Obama's go through, people have a right to respond.
Do you even understand how debates are supposed to work?
How exactly can we get a non-partisan or at least non-participatory moderator?
So far, in the debates, the girls have helped the Dems, whild the guy let the candidates talk.
Really, Republicans deserve to lose all elections forever for letting these idjits act as moderators. Why do they agree to this? Do they have a death wish?
After this year, the 2016 Republican field of candidates/Romney needs to insist on a much harsher control of the debates.
Why not even up the debates. How about this: get Crowley or whomever to ask the Republican questions and then get someone like Limbaugh to ask the Democrat questions.
Having opposition questioners was a suggestion of mine a few posts ago. Others have probably brought the question up before me. It was pointed out to me at the time that the GOP has no choice – either accept Democrat format and rules or no debate at all. But if there is no debate there is no way in which the GOP can have a possibility in countering the heavy MSM bias. So the GOP HAS to accept the Democrats and liberal moderators setting the rules, breaking the rules, interceding on behalf of the Democrat candidate, etc. It's their only chance to speak to the voters live and unedited.
"Why did she have the transcript with her?"
I said it last night: This was collusion.
Obama knew the questions beforehand, and Crowley knew what Obama would say.
Oh, that liberal media. Can we get Garage here to explain to us how the media is really biased against Democrats and Republicans are just being paranoid?
It was pointed out to me at the time that the GOP has no choice – either accept Democrat format and rules or no debate at all.
...then have no debates. Point to Crowley's performance as to why and how they won't accept that again.
The debate commission had agreements with the campaigns and Crowley just unilaterally decided to violate it.
The "please proceed" comment was outstanding, Obama knew Romney was going to make a fool of himself and let him do it. I wish Candy wouldn't have interjected, it would've been amazing to see Romney make an even bigger fool of himself.
If she had the transcript on hand, that makes even me think there was collusion, not just incompetency.
I still think Obama lost the debate.
Over time, the dissembling about Benghazi is going to come back to bite him.
That story is not finished. I expect much more to emerge in the weeks leading up to election.
Nice to know our President is a bit of whiny bitch.
Inga: Both times, Romney has been proven right -- on the leases and on Libya. Romney did not make a fool of himself if we care about facts and not just the optics of an incompetent moderator screwing up.
Fourth question: Romney, Obama, Romney, Obama, Romney. Obama tries to get final word, is prevented:
CROWLEY: Mr. President, we're keeping track, I promise you. And Mr. President, the next question is for you, so stay standing.
OBAMA: Great. Looking forward to it.
Fourth question: Romney, Obama, Romney, Obama, Romney. Obama tries to get final word, is prevented:
CROWLEY: Mr. President, we're keeping track, I promise you. And Mr. President, the next question is for you, so stay standing.
OBAMA: Great. Looking forward to it.
--> If Romney started, Romney is SUPPOSED to get the final word.
Binders of bias!
If Mitt Romney can't handle Candy Crowley how can he handle al Qaeda?
Here is another coincidence:
How did Crowley just happen to have a copy of the transcript in her hot little hands when Obama prompted here to "go on, read it" referring to the transcript Crowley had not yet mentioned possessing?
Hmm.
So, now, let's circle back. You've provided three examples; two of which Romney had the right, by rules, to respond last. One in which it was a total cluster and decency requires that someone who is accused of lying has a right to defend himself.
So. Now. Let me ask again: Do you know how debates work?
Fifth question: Obama, Romney, Obama. Balances out the fourth question where Romney got the first and last word. Except Romney isn't having it:
ROMNEY: Thank you. And I appreciate that question.
I just want to make sure that, I think I was supposed to get that last answer, but I want to point out that that I don't believe...
"If Mitt Romney can't handle Candy Crowley how can he handle al Qaeda?"
--> If Obama can only fight to a draw, while losing on substance, even with Crowley, how can he handle al Qaeda? Oh wait, those are different skillsets now that are non-predicative? Funny, that.
Romney keeps binders of women imprisoned in his file drawers!
AllenS said...
Why not even up the debates. How about this: get Crowley or whomever to ask the Republican questions and then get someone like Limbaugh to ask the Democrat questions.
==================
The solution is not to balance the gibbering idealogue journalists by inserting a brain-dead Hannity to balance a Obama supplicant like Crowley.
It's to get the journalists out of the business altogether.Most train not to control a debate, but to get partisan asshole talking heads screaming at one another for ratings.
Give me a don't fuck with me retired Marine general or judge that has a clock and two mute buttons. "You have 2 minutes to answer the question, your opponent has 2 minutes. Then you have 45 seconds rebuttal. Same with your opponent. The mute button is activated when you are not speaking or run over."
And for excitement, they could add a direct Q&A with the candidates interacting directly - time of 5 minutes with 15 seconds to ask, 15 seconds to answer halfway through and at the end of the debate. Where the mute buttons are not activated. But the moderator says time is up, next Q&A, and if one candidate refuses to go along, the mute button is pushed.
But the mute button is again pushed with closing statements, no interruptions tolerated.
After Romney's kvetching, the fifth question (differences with Bush) is Romney-Obama with no replies or interruptions.
Ah. There we go; Romney shows minor confusion. You are totally vindicated.
Sorry, meant the sixth.
By contrast, Obama seemed beta, calling out "Candy?"
Everytime he said Candy it came out like 'Mom, it's not fair!' Annoying.
The Bush question made no sense and is an example of bias; Obama can't respond to that in any meaningful way. That's why there were no replies or interruptions; it was solely a hand grenade lobbed at Romney.
If Obama can only fight to a draw, while losing on substance, even with Crowley, how can he handle al Qaeda?
C'mon, Romney got smoked last night. He looked like an overeager arrogant asshole, and you guys wouldn't be whining about the moderator or the precise time they each got if he didn't get trounced.
Lehrer did OK. Honestly, a moderator should always err on the side of letting the participants speak.
If you will review the first debate you will see that at first Lehrer did try to cut Romney off while letting Obama run on and on. Romney saw what was happening and after awhile simply ignored Lehrer and got his shots in. It was different this time because Crowley kept hiding behind the excuse of finding time for all the questions from the public. Questions that were cherry-picked by Crowley.
Sorry Inga, go to hell on this one.
Your lefty media friends are assholes of the highest order, evil fucks tearing down this country one rigged debate at a time.
I'm sick of it, and your dancing on the grave is maddening.
AF: PS, the Bush question furthers my point; Romney should have gotten to respond, but didn't get the opportunity to do so (even though the question itself was a wasted slot.)
"C'mon, Romney got smoked last night. He looked like an overeager arrogant asshole, and you guys wouldn't be whining about the moderator or the precise time they each got if he didn't get trounced."
-- We whined about the moderator and precise time they got with Lehrer too. And, well, yeah.
Try again?
Dancing on the grave? Who is dragging out the corpses and propping them up for display? Romney and the right.
Immigration: Romney, Obama, Romney, who, at the end of the answer, cross-examines Obama about pensions, then Obama.
It was more than a simple "act of terror", which is an ambiguous description of a well-defined event. The act was assault and murder committed by an organized, well armed, focused force. It could not be mistaken for a mob action or any other spontaneous conflagration.
Obama cannot defend his response with that simple statement. Neither could Crowley provided credible cover to defend him.
Inga: The right didn't pose for photo ops and interviews next to his casket. The right didn't go to bed while he was MIA and jet off to Vegas. Drop this line of argument; it ends badly for Obama. He failed as a leader on this.
I don't know about Romney making himself look like a fool Inga, but Obama sure made you look like a fool on the video issue.
Libya: Obama, Romney, Obama, Romney, who again chooses to cross-examine Obama and then wants the floor back.
"Who is dragging out the corpses...?"
Obama: Osama
Next.
Being a troll is bad.
Being a troll on hallucinogenics is really bad.
There's no known cure.
Guns: Obama, Romney, follow-up to Romney, Obama, who is stopped by Crowley.
"Immigration: Romney, Obama, Romney, who, at the end of the answer, cross-examines Obama about pensions, then Obama."
--> Do you mean the exchange that Crowley cut off as Romney was making the point Obama has money in China and the Cayman's to directly refute Obama's attack (that Romney had not earlier been allowed to respond to?)
You're not helping your case if you are; it is an example of how Crowley's mishandling of the debate caused chaos and deliberately under cut one of the two. That was a crippling attack if it landed, but Crowley cut it off.
"Drop this line of argument; it ends badly for Obama. He failed as a leader on this."
Dude.
Shhhsh.
Seriously.
Let her run with it.
She believes it's a winner.
We've always been at war with eastasia.
This is why I haven't watched any TV news, except 3 minutes of the local twits, nor any NPR, in well over 5 years.
Pure continuous lefty bullshit.
And now Crowley dry-humps Obama's leg in front of millions, and the left cheers.
Fuckwads, all of them.
Outsourcing: Romney, Obama, Romney, Obama, Romney (who, possibly rattled by Libya, gives a short final answer)
"Obama didn't say this was an act of terror for 14 days."
Yes he did, check the transcript.
"Okay, he said "act of terror", but not in a tone that's acceptable to me! Obama still lied!"
lulzy, that
Matthew, as President of the United Stares it's his job, to be present at such ceremonies. Oh the sturm und drang should he NOT have been there.
Libya: Crowley's mismanagement of this doesn't really help you. This was another where she stepped in to shield Obama from an attack.
X said...
"I don't know about Romney making himself look like a fool Inga, but Obama sure made you look like a fool on the video issue."
Let's all just stop giving Inga hints on how to sharpen her game, eh?
Please?
I need things to laugh at.
I no longer believe anything that Obama says.
Oh come on, be honest. You never did, did you?
Inga: If he can't be bothered to stay awake to hear the news, he sure as heck shouldn't benefit from showing up. He wasn't there when he needed to lead, he doesn't get to wave the ambassador's bloody shirt.
...then have no debates. Point to Crowley's performance as to why and how they won't accept that again
Word.
I would INSIST that Fox News (Bret Baier, Brit Hume) get one of the debates, or I wouldn't have any. And every time it was asked, I'd remind the people of this fiasco.
Candy Crowley had more security last night than Christopher Stevens did.
Garage: Even Crowley admitted she was wrong on this account and that Romney had a point; Obama was ambiguous in his point. I think he meant what he says he said but did not say what he thought he said. In short, Romney is "right in the main," but charity means we should accept that Obama meant something else.
"Do you mean the exchange that Crowley cut off as Romney was making the point Obama has money in China and the Cayman's to directly refute Obama's attack . . . ?"
He wasn't simply making a point, he was cross-examining Obama. He ceded the floor and then tried to get it back, several times.
If Mitt Romney can't handle Candy Crowley how can he handle al Qaeda?
Apparently, Prez Obama has considerable difficulty handling Al Qaeda!
Inga said...
Dancing on the grave? Who is dragging out the corpses and propping them up for display?
The White House.
Romney and the right.
MYSTERY SOLVED: Obama's 2nd-debate prep partner.
"Candy?"
Dear God, but the president is a pussy.
AF: He asked a question; Obama didn't answer. If he asked a question and Obama started reciting a cookie recipe, we should cut off Obama as well. Obama refused to answer, he doesn't get to waste the time of the man who gets less speaking time by being a dick.
Romney took the bloody shirts off of the victims and waved them before the poor bodies were even cool.
Romney got smoked last night. He looked like an overeager arrogant asshole, and you guys wouldn't be whining about the moderator or the precise time they each got if he didn't get trounced.
This is some weapons grade idiocy. Nowhere in any parallel universe is these even remotely true.
Neither candidate seemed to care much about the stiff, stilted citizens who'd been cherry-picked for the audience. Nor did I.
Cary seemed like a genuine guy, and kid Josh genuinely scared.
Inga: Romney's comments dealt with Cairo. That is not in Libya.
Geography: How does it work?
garage mahal said...
Yes he did, check the transcript.
You're a gullible idiot.
CROWLEY: I am joined by Obama campaign senior adviser David Axelrod. I want to pick up on what John McCain and I were talking about. There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved.
That was tiny Candy on September 30th.
Romney got smoked last night.
Right!
And all kinds of polls & focus groups confirm that silly, dipshit assertion!
...then have no debates.
Then face weeks of stories about how the cowardly rethuglican is afraid to debate with an unbiased, impartial professional journalist as moderator, followed by a nationally televised show of the democrat "debating" an empty chair.
Matthew Sablan: "Even Crowley admitted she was wrong on this account and that Romney had a point; Obama was ambiguous in his point."
No amount of bullshit is going to change the facts of the matter.
Notice that by your logic, I didn't just call bullshit on you.
What we really need is a written debate. Each campaign gets to submit the same number of questions, which both sides must asnwer. They have a couple days to come up with their answers, which are then posted online at the same time. The can each then respond to the other's answers. No space limit. No limit to the number of times they can reply to each other's answers. They can provide links to sources to back up their arguments.
Since there is no time or space limit, we can even let 3rd party candidates ( or blogresses, if they like ) participate in the debate. ( although they would probably not get to submit questions for the other candidates. )
Apparently saying exactly what the White House eventually got around to saying after the President sent his 3AM call to voice mail and flew to Vegas is "waving the bloody shirt"
Smoked!
CBS Poll: Romney Wins 65-34 on Economy;
CNN Poll: Romney Wins 54-40 on Economy,
49-46 on Health Care,
51-44 on Taxes,
59-36 on Deficit,
49-46 on Leadership,
All in Favor of Romney
SMOKED Doesn't mean what you think it means, fat clown.
AF said...
No amount of bullshit is going to change the facts of the matter.
You have not one utter fucking clue what the facts are.
Please?
I need things to laugh at.
since you asked nicely, no. because I hate the niners. and it's not like she'll gain self awareness. she's not skynet. I mean look at her. she's complaining about someone who is not her waving a bloody shirt.
Should we go for a cyborg in 2016 that can be programmed to handle things in a neutral fashion?
How about Watson, that computer that aced Jeopardy? He seemed pretty smart.
Enter all the data about what the Candidates will talk about, and then Watson can say The data indicates that you are lying.
Alternatively, how about a Dalek?
Candy Crowley plays an inept and dumb woman to a T.
No one can doubt her sincerity because she acts too stupid to know how to trick anyone.
That is her skill that gets her hired for the job to "accidentally" create bias in her reporting.
It is very clear that this cherry picked phrase of not bowing to terrorism several minutes into Obama's mush speech of platitudes strung together was done as a pre-planned Candy/Obama attack on the Governor.
Crowley gets the Sophism Award of the decade for that coordinated hit piece...and it was done by a lady too stupid to understand things, don't you know.
TrooferAllie: Romney took the bloody shirts off of the victims and waved them before the poor bodies were even cool.
Shame on you for using the Benghazi dead as your own personal human shields, you sanctimonious little twit.
You're a gullible idiot.
Romney looked like the incomparable fool that he is on the Fox driven Benghazi lie. He got called out on that lie in front of tens of millions of people. I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept that fact.
Romney is very effective when he gets to speechify his stupid talking points unchallenged. But when he does get challenged on any of them he looks like a nervous and combative basket case.
"No amount of bullshit is going to change the facts of the matter.
Notice that by your logic, I didn't just call bullshit on you. "
-- You are correct; the problem is, it is not I who is using B.S. See, that's the problem with ambiguity. It can mean different things; in this case, you wanted to imply one thing, but since I know that the facts I'm putting forward are right, I have to understand it as you admitting defeat -- you could not shovel the B.S. high enough to defend your assertion on Libya, or the general flow of the debate with Romney's speaking habits, etc.
That's what happens when you go off unprepared without doing your homework.
Garage: All that you said? Pointless. Crowley admitted Romney was right after the debate; even CNN's Anderson Cooper called her to task on it. She was -wrong-, Romney was -right.-
Matthew on Sept 12th Romney mentioned Libya and Egypt in his criticism of Obama.
All this talk about Libya and Benghazi isn't helping Obama.
It just reminds people, hourly, that 4 Americans were killed, and Obama blamed a video for weeks before acknowledging what every one knew to be true.
You couldn't pay me to watch the debate. It's hard to watch two salesmen disagree about facts when it is their premises that are bullshit.
But I have found the post-debate commentary interesting. I found it interesting how many of my liberal friends praised for the moderator. Obama, by himself, they barely mentioned.
garage mahal said...
Romney looked like the incomparable fool that he is on the Fox driven Benghazi lie. He got called out on that lie in front of tens of millions of people.
Um, if Romney was "lying" isn't it funny how you can't explain why tiny Candy was saying it took 2 weeks for the Admin to say it involved terrorism?
Isn't it funny how you can't explain how tiny Candy then said Romney was "right in the main"?
Isn't it funny how you can't explain spokespersons for the Obama Administration continuing to blame the video for 10 days after the President allegedly called this terrorism?
Don't worry bozo, these facts are all too complicated for you.
Shout "lie" and stamp your feet.
Such actions are representative of your intellect.
I think Obama's jejune ideas of economics have more to do with the price of apples (literally).
By now, somebody probably has explained to him about auto insurance and how you pay extra for collision and comprehensive, and maybe he understands it with his head, but in his heart he still feels the insurance company cheated him and should have replaced his car because he had "insurance."
Obama was skillfully lying from behind. And with a media conspiracy to help himout he gets away with it.
Media protecting Tyrants like Obama become so banal that they become boring jokes.
Ergo CNN is boring. But CNN earlier went to the mat with Obama's minions on the diary issue and the false propaganda issue...at least Anderson Cooper did.
Praised the moderator.
My takeaway is that liberals love moderators. They want everyone to have one.
"Matthew on Sept 12th Romney mentioned Libya and Egypt in his criticism of Obama."
-- Was that before or after Obama was partying in Vegas and fundraising while we were still working on figuring out why we had a quartet of dead Americans in a foreign country?
Matthew Sablan: " I have to understand it as you admitting defeat."
No furnace-humper is going to tell me I'm admitting defeat.
This is fun.
Romney keeps binders of women imprisoned in his file drawers!
Come on Allie, don't go along with the stupidest non-controversy ever. Who the hell doesn't know exactly what Romney meant?
Have none of these people ever worked in an office or HR or spend any time hiring? Sheesh.
Actually Matthew it was on Sept 11, NOT 12th, he didn't even wait one full day.
She was -wrong-, Romney was -right.-
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 called it an act of terror twice the next day. It was a lie and Romney got busted.
Now the right wants to move the goalposts and say "well, he did blame a tape!!!"
Shanna, I don't consider it a controversy, it's simply funny.
As I said on an earlier thread, it was a lame debate. To start with picking an inexperienced and biased moderator makes it a waste of time to watch. Does the Commision feel better about picking from binders of female debate moderators? I bet most liberals would blow a gasket if Sean Hannity were picked, and for good reason. He's no more biased however and arguably a better moderator.
--> Do you mean the exchange that Crowley cut off as Romney was making the point Obama has money in China and the Cayman's to directly refute Obama's attack (that Romney had not earlier been allowed to respond to?)
Oh, can I just mentioned how much I loved where Romney was going and his tone with his 'Let me give you some free advice'? Love.
Of course stupid Candy cut him off.
How exactly can we get a non-partisan or at least non-participatory moderator? Should we go for a cyborg in 2016 that can be programmed to handle things in a neutral fashion? WTF?
Instead of neutrality, how about balance? Have Hugh Hewitt or Rush moderate one of the debates.
Whoa!
Garage, two mentions? Really? Two of them? Not one referring to 9/11?
Can YOU explain why the Administration blamed a video?
Can YOU explain why the Administration blamed a video?
Wheeeeeeeee!
Romney keeps binders of women imprisoned in his file drawers!
A pity we don't have a real war on women so he could lock your worthless ass up for life.
So...no, you cannot. Odd that they obsessed over it so.
Obama called it an act of terror twice the next day. It was a lie and Romney got busted.
No, he did not. Obama DIDN'T SAY it was a terrorist attack. He was referring to 9/11, NOT the attack in Benghazi.
Inga said...
Dancing on the grave? Who is dragging out the corpses and propping them up for display?
The White House.
Romney and the right.
No, he did not. Obama DIDN'T SAY it was a terrorist attack. He was referring to 9/11, NOT the attack in Benghazi.
So now "an act of terror" isn't a terrorist attack? And Obama was referring to 9/11/2001 ?
LOL. Okay
I Callahan said...
...then have no debates. Point to Crowley's performance as to why and how they won't accept that again
Word.
I would INSIST that Fox News (Bret Baier, Brit Hume) get one of the debates, or I wouldn't have any. And every time it was asked, I'd remind the people of this fiasco.
--------------------
Why MUST Presidential debates be done by just journalists from the Left or Right?
They are not trained in debate science or controlling debate in a real setting (judges in courtrooms, diplomats presiding in conferences, etc.)
The answer to the problem is not to balance a stupid Crowley with a moron Hannity.
The problem is inherent in using untrained journalists that cannot act as impartial judges or administrators in an organized presentation of differing opinions. Or people of restrained egos who are in control of the proceeding but not the Stars of it.
Some journalists do have that quality, but very few.
The reason we "got" them into the process as opposed to trained and better people that do the function on a state or local level, do it in other countries, is the false idea of:
1. 1950s and 1960s beliefs in Journalists as the ultimate "objective" straight reporters who do functions without opoinions and free of personal agendas or politics.
2. Insistance by the networks that if they put on debates and "lost" valuable commercial time..then the whole debate ought to fairly be done just by their staffs. Their producers, their camera crews, their Superstar Anchors..
3. A public misimpression that people in news and entertainment that host shows where people argue are the same as debate moderators.
He did refer to a video causing the problem for weeks. Even Crawley noticed it at one point.
Romney looked like the incomparable fool that he is on the Fox driven Benghazi lie. He got called out on that lie in front of tens of millions of people.
"[Romney] was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."
-- Candy Crowley
"garage mahal said..."
re: terror and the supposed Sept. 12 Rose Garden statement.
Can that 'garbage' poster be any more "stoopid"?
Does he know who Susan Rice is, and what she repeated on EVERY program the following Sunday?
garage := stoopid^2 maybe?
From Mickey Kaus -
Here’s why Candy Crowley was out of line. What Obama said in the Rose Garden was:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
You could say that Obama was calling this attack an “act of terror.” Or you could say that Obama was using the phrase “act of terror” in the vicinity of discussing the “attack” to come close to labeling it an act of terror without actually, logically doing so, preserving his freedom to not do so in the future. He only used the phrase after talking about the original 2001 9/11 attacks, after all. Maybe those were the “acts of terror” that wouldn’t shake our resolve, etc. that Obama was talking about. The antecedent is ambigious, presumably intentionally so.
So this is a dispute in which Josh Gerstein and Glenn Kessler can take opposing sides. So might viewers. But Crowley did not let viewers draw their own conclusions. She didn’t let the candidates make their arguments about what Obama’s statement did or did not mean–obviously the right course to take. She flatly intervened to declare that Obama’s interpretation was right.
I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions. …
We now return you to garage and his merry band of feces-flinging idiots.
"How exactly can we get a non-partisan or at least non-participatory moderator?"
Well, don't offer the job to a journalist, obviously.
We need someone who understands it's not their job to pick a winner, who understands the rules and respects them, and who knows it's really not all about them. I suggest we get a game-show host to moderate. Really.
What is sad is that our media is either too stupid or too corrupt to see their own bias. I mean come on, this is not even "debatable."
If you want the press to do it's job, vote Republican.
I Callahan: "No, he did not. Obama DIDN'T SAY it was a terrorist attack. He was referring to 9/11, NOT the attack in Benghazi."
No squirrel-blood drinker is going to tell me that Obama was referring to 9/11.
(And by squirrel-blood drinker, I mean Rudy Giuliani.)
"Can YOU explain why the Administration blamed a video?"
Maybe this?
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. Link
A video nobody had seen caused them to suddenly break out RPGs? Sure.
Garage,
And not one conservative here will believe what the attackers THEMSELVES have to say, because it won't fit their narrative. They want to keep Nakoula on his pedestal, to hell with the TRUTH.
"Mitt was way over his time and was trying to bulldoze his way into getting yet another reply."
A reply to the moderator, you mean? Who had just interjected a false statement on behalf of his opponent? Does the moderator get equal time now, too?
Garage: Obama called it an act of terror twice the next day. It was a lie and Romney got busted.
#1, press release.
CTRL+F "terror": no results.
#2, Rose Garden statement.
CTRL+F "terror": First reference to "an attack", followed by "outrageous and shocking attack", followed by "sensless violence".
Generic reference to "acts of terror" finally appears in the 10th of 13 paragraphs.
Busted and busted, you.
Another bizarre coincidence:
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west every day.
damikesc said...
It was pointed out to me at the time that the GOP has no choice – either accept Democrat format and rules or no debate at all.
...then have no debates. Point to Crowley's performance as to why and how they won't accept that again.
Precisely.
We got through the '64, '68, and '72 elections without them just fine.
Essentially, they're nothing but gang press conferences.
And, as for moderators, next time how 'bout El Rushbo or Mark Levin or Mrs Cruella Neutrality herself?
Inga said...
Dancing on the grave? Who is dragging out the corpses and propping them up for display? Romney and the right.
How 'bout that?
Barry and company would like the whole thing swept under the trug like F&F.
The Romster and Ryan are the ones trying to get out the truth.
PS Col David Hunt has some revelations on Libya to turn your stomach in terms of what the Administration knew and when.
I quote from Sarah Hoyt's post on Insta, What happened in Benghazi is, was an operational leadership failure on an entire government chain of command that did not act and had six hours to do so and did nothing.
They heard the whole 6 hour firefight.
I think that the debates would be handled more fairly by a game show host and game show timekeepers. They have more experience at acting impartial.
"A reply to the moderator, you mean? Who had just interjected a false statement on behalf of his opponent? Does the moderator get equal time now, too?"
No leg-hair eater is going to ask me a series of inane rhetorical questions and get an answer.
Inga, I can't believe you would have the same blind accepting attitude about this if your daughter was one of the marines at that embassy. At the very least you should be angry and skeptical. They were someone's children, fathers, brothers, sons.
Undecided voters my ass
We don't need no Stinkin' Fact Checkers....!
Bagoh, I am angry, but that doesn't mean I will buy how the right has framed this, from day ONE, 9/11Romney politicized it, that was reprehensible.
I was extremely worried about Americans in the ME, my daughter included.
It was pointed out to me at the time that the GOP has no choice – either accept Democrat format and rules or no debate at all.
...then have no debates. Point to Crowley's performance as to why and how they won't accept that again.
The problem for the Republicans this time was that Obama is President and is running for reelection. They needed the debates far more than he did, and so negotiated from a position of significant weakness.
If Romney wins this election, I have little doubt that things will be quite different in four years. He will be the incumbent, and likely both he and Ryan would still have memories of how badly the debates this time were skewed by the liberal MSM journalists (a bit of redundancy there) trying to protect Obama and Biden, and likely opt for more impartial moderators, town hall participants, etc. and better fora for their strengths.
That said, I think that their gamble has paid off - as someone pointed out yesterday Romney was able to counter hundreds of millions of dollars of negative advertising painting him as the devil incarnate with his performance at the first debate, and Ryan was able to overcome the problem of his youth by his mature handling of Biden's over-the-top antics in the second debate.
Obama may have been able to win the second debate with Romney through the help of Crowley, or at least credibly claim a tie, but it doesn't appear to have slowed his descent in the polls, nor Romney's rise. He needed a knock out this time, and didn't get it - and with Crowley's so obvious help, was unlikely to get it.
Undecided voters my ass
Linked-to post goes on:
Indeed, CNN admitted that almost all of the audience had voted for Obama in 2008.
"I was extremely worried about Americans in the ME, my daughter included."
-- So was Romney; Obama, apparently, wasn't too concerned. He went to bed after learning people were missing. Romney tried to get to the bottom of things and learn the truth.
Leadership.
"Bagoh, I am angry, but that doesn't mean I will buy how the right has framed this, from day ONE, 9/11Romney politicized it, that was reprehensible."
-- Obama's criticisms of the Cairo statement were just as harsh as Romney's. Why aren't you upset with him politicizing things and sleeping on the job?
Honestly, Inga. He couldn't have NOT made a statement about it any more than the president could have NOT made a statement about it.
Nor was his statement in any way outrageous.
And are we not supposed to notice running off to Vegas? Maybe the way we're supposed to notice that Obama refused to answer a very clearly stated and simple question about conditions before the attack and who decided that Libya wasn't dangerous enough that our people needed real security?
Are we only allowed and is Romney only allowed to talk about things that don't matter?
What's amusing (and amazing) is that Oop actually thinks we believe her moby drivel about her concerns (other than getting Zero re-elected) and the science fiction she's created about her "family".
PS Anybody think he/she/it would be here trying to talk down Libya if it wasn't obvious by the polls the Romster won over a lot of disgruntled former Zero voters last night?
Busted and busted, you.
ROSE GARDEN: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.Link
Next day:
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)Link
Nice link Callahan.
So the lady with the equal pay question has the same name as a Code Pink media coordinator huh?
OK, maybe it isn't the same person
Lefties - Does my putting the first link up make me a liar?
According Garage at 2:22 and Inga at 2:30PM, the video still is the primary cause of the Banghazi raid. This also explains why they want to see Nakoula kept in jail.
Inga: Back when the video was being blamed for the riots and deaths, you didn't give a damn about free speech -- for you the most important thing was not endangering US personnel in the Middle East.
Now we know that it was a premeditated terrorist plot that killed Amb. Stevens et al. and that it was laxness on the part of the Obama administration which allowed that plot to succeed.
Yet once again, your concern isn't with the people who killed our citizens or the administration that allowed it to happen. No, now the problem is Romney and conservatives.
Are you really concerned with Americans in the Middle East, or is that only when you can blame the people you like to blame.
Inga wrote: Bagoh, I am angry, but that doesn't mean I will buy how the right has framed this, from day ONE, 9/11Romney politicized it, that was reprehensible.
Romney addressed a press release from the US Embassy in Egypt well in advance of the strike at Benghazi. Obama later repudiated the same release. Was that reprehensible also? Or are you suggesting (stupidly) that the repudiation was not also political.
More importantly, it is incredible that you and garage would cite an outlier article from the Pravda of the US, the NYT and then criticize others for forming a different opinion from other sources.
Btw, did you happen to read what the only named source in the NYT article said:
“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”
(Emphasis mine.)
What don't you and garage understand about that?
WH press secretary Carney, more than a week AFTER the Rose Garden Speech: "We hadn’t called it terrorism".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012
So, Crowley reads the Rose Garden transcript and says one thing, but Obama's own press secretary says another when he finally calls it an "act of terror"??
Fuck the damn "protest", they are saying the ATTACK was in retaliation for the video. What do you not understand?!
"Fuck the damn "protest", they are saying the ATTACK was in retaliation for the video. What do you not understand?!"
-- Er... no; they were saying there was no protest. There was no retaliation for the video. Even the thin reed they used as an attempt at justification turns out to also mention AQ was planning to attack no matter what.
Inga said...
"Bagoh, I am angry, but that doesn't mean I will buy how the right has framed this, from day ONE, 9/11Romney politicized it, that was reprehensible."
Thus, the eternal beauty of Kurosawa's "Rashomon" is confirmed, once more.
Some people just can't be reasoned with.
It's probably weakest, longest lasting assumption of the Enlightenment.
The sooner we all realize this, the better off we'll be.
"Fuck the damn "protest", they are saying the ATTACK was in retaliation for the video. What do you not understand?!"
What you don't understand is, they are lying.
And you are buying the lie.
Because it suits your worldview.
The worst lies are the ones you tell yourself.
You're probably too old to learn that, but whatever.
For others, it's not too late.
Peace be with you.
There was no retaliation for the video
"That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier."
Hmmm, who to believe? People around the embassy itself, or a whipped up group of rabid partisans who want to use the attack to win an election?
Inga said...
Fuck the damn "protest", they are saying the ATTACK was in retaliation for the video. What do you not understand?!
Lots of things.
(1) The timing for example. Did the translated version of the video allow enough time to spontaneously assemble the attack with RPG rockets? A protest is much more believable. BTW, why wasn't there a protest if the video was translated and available in Bengazhi?
(2)If loonies with RPG rockets were hanging around waiting for a spark, why was the emabbsy so unprotected?
(3)Why was security so lax?
Even if what inga supposes were true, why did she so hastily concur that the attackers had grounds and that the videomaker should be jailed?
Why can't this just be what it appears to be--a pre-planned attack?
That last one is rhetorical because we know who doesn't want it to be such and why.
Bagoh, I am angry, but that doesn't mean I will buy how the right has framed this, from day ONE, 9/11Romney politicized it, that was reprehensible.
I'm glad Obama never "politicized" a death of anybody...well, unless one ignores the several times he did, in fact, do so.
Our ambassador was killed because the administration refused to provide adequate security and then decided to blame a video for the problem and not their lax security.
Fuck the damn "protest", they are saying the ATTACK was in retaliation for the video. What do you not understand?!
...except it was not. And Obama claimed it was a protest that got out of hand, just as a reminder.
Hint: If somebody kills people over a video --- then the video was not the actual reason.
"And not one conservative here will believe what the attackers THEMSELVES have to say, because it won't fit their narrative."
I make it a policy to always implicitly believe everything random terrorists allegedly say to reporters, because they're all such honest and well-intentioned chaps.
So it's clear now that the Benghazi branch of the Shriners Club just happened to be walking down the street one fine evening which happened to be September 11th. Suddenly, one of these local civic reformers happened to remember a stupid YouTube video he'd seen months ago. This enraged the group, of course, inspiring them to go back in time and retroactively spy on the local American consulate prior to the spontaneous attack planned for September 11th, a random date which held absolutely no significance to any of them.
And as luck would have it, they just happened to be carrying their heavy weapons with them while strolling about on the evening of September 11th, just in case they saw any blasphemous online movies that needed to be mortared to death. Having resisted their spontaneous righteous YouTube outrage as long as they possibly could, they stumbled upon an American consulate where the ambassador just happened to be in residence, and attacked just as the local security guards coincidentally disappeared.
And after stealing the intelligence documents and lists of local citizens - some wacky spontaneous whim - they spontaneously murdered everyone inside. And, even worse, completely ruining the President's day.
Gosh, that was a run of really bad luck. Case closed.
Hmmm, who to believe? People around the embassy itself, or a whipped up group of rabid partisans who want to use the attack to win an election?
Just checking --- you thought Abu Gharib was bad, right?
Checking for consistency.
A well-orchestrated assault "because of a video" is never caused by a video. Hate to break it to you.
It's known as a flimsy rationalization.
Liar, Chickelit. When did I say the terrorists were justified (had grounds) in any way for the attacks. That's low, even for you.
I found it rather suspicious both that Crowley convenienly happened to have the transcript (the complete transcript, mind you, not the official White House transcript) AND that Obama knew she had it.
How did that happen?
damikesc said...
I'm glad Obama never "politicized" a death of anybody...well, unless one ignores the several times he did, in fact, do so.
Inga has stated over and over that she's not "for" Obama--she just wants to make sure that Romney loses. She's like a female Crack.
Perhaps we should call her "The Schlitz EmCee" as an homage to her hometown and soulmate.
Hint: If somebody kills people over a video --- then the video was not the actual reason.
So you're saying Muslims would never kill somebody over a video? Or a cartoon?
You aren't convincing garage.
The reason you're not convincing is that you're "lawyering" and it's usually not a good way to win an argument. It doesn't pass a reasonable man test to expect everyone to shove two weeks down a memory hole because, yet again, Obama managed to be so ambiguous that what he said could mean anything or nothing at all.
It's like magic. Obama managed to identify the attack at Benghazi as a terrorist attack so *cleverly* that no one noticed for two weeks!
For two weeks the administration officially represented it all as riots that got out of hand.
The president of Libya said it was a terrorist attack and we're all... hey, why can't Obama admit it was a terrorist attack? It's obvious that it wasn't an out of control riot. NO ONE, certainly not you, piped up to say that we were wrong to rag on Obama because he did so say it was a terrorist attack.
He so cleverly said something so ambiguous and meaningless that it took two weeks to force him and his administration to publicly admit that there was never a riot and they'd known that within a day there hadn't been a riot.
Meanwhile he allowed alarm over the violence to endanger our fundamental freedom of speech and put another man's life in peril as OUR FUCKING GOVERNMENT located and identified the film-maker supposedly responsible for four American deaths. Why?
Maybe you feel comfortable rewriting the events of the last month and pretending that Obama isn't lying now, but taking soma has side effects you should consider, long term.
We'll know the real winner of the debate on Nov 6. -CP
damikesc...War on the USA that is handled by being hushed up by a sitting President who wants our enemy to love us because we have surrendered to it is a major political issue between Mr Fifth Column Obama and normal American citizens who need to know that on election day to save their lives.
So you're saying Muslims would never kill somebody over a video? Or a cartoon?
I'm saying the reason is far deeper than that. Islamist regimes tend to have incredibly stupid citizens who they will lead to do idiotic things to protect their own power.
This attack wasn't the act of a random mob.
Gang bangers shoot one another because they wear the wrong color. Do you REALLY think the choice of clothing is WHY it happened?
Honestly?
When did I say the terrorists were justified (had grounds) in any way for the attacks.
You did place an awful lot of blame on that filmmaker whose 12 minute YouTube video is still basically unwatched.
Inga said...
Liar, Chickelit. When did I say the terrorists were justified (had grounds) in any way for the attacks. That's low, even for you.
You argued ad nauseum that the video was offensive and should somehow not be allowed. This was the basis for your running afoul of the 1st Amendment with many here.
"So you're saying Muslims would never kill somebody over a video? Or a cartoon?"
Yes.
No one would.
If they kill someone it's *because* of something else.
If a man kills his wife for burning supper, would you insist that he killed her *because* she burned supper?
Garage, they didn't read the article, that's obvious.
What about the attack over a perceived insult to their prohpet at the Italian mission in Benghazi in 2006? Why would his be hard to believe its been done before.
It's like magic. Obama managed to identify the attack at Benghazi as a terrorist attack so *cleverly* that no one noticed for two weeks!
It's not Obama's problem Romney didn't notice. And really, Romney I'm sure was just watching Fox News, Breitbart, NRO, etc talk about it nonstop. Ooops
Again Liar Chickelit, I said people should realize we are still at war and their STUPID speech could get someone killed.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন