Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn’t Stop Herself

Video: Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn’t Stop Herself

After embarrassing herself with her incompetently biased attempt to “fact check” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate, CNN correspondent Candy Crowley has already began trying to save her shattered credibility. In a panel discussion afterward, a fast-talking Crowley tried to spin away her offensive conduct by admitting that Romney was indeed correct in casting blame on the Obama Administration for falsely blaming an anti-Islamic video for attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“It was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting,” Crowley insisted, admitting she simply couldn’t help herself from unprofessionally inserting herself into a heated dispute between presidential candidates.

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley said, echoing the extremely legalistic reading of the facts about what President Obama meant when he said “acts of terror” in reference to the Benghazi attack.

Knowing that she is facing a tremendous amount of backlash for her outburst, Crowley tried to play down the Libya discussion in the debate, insisting it wasn't really important:

This is why you don't put a Democrat Obama supporter in as a moderator. This is also why some (me included) call our media the "drive-by media". they do their damage and then speed away. I can't tell you how many people at work are repeating the same thing Crowley did during the debate in defense of Obama and none of them have any clue how wrong they are.

They also repeat the line that "it will be about the economy". If that's true Obama shouldn't have a chance in hell, yet they still support him while blaming everyone else for the economic troubles.

He did not say the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist act. Period. No malarkey. Obama and his Chicago thugs will lie about anything to advance their need to control this country. Pathetic. And Crowley failed big time.

Crowley is full of malarkey, as Joe Biden likes to say. I went back and watched the YouTube video of the Rose garden speech. Obama DID NOT call the Benghazi attack a "terrorist " attack. His first reference was to the people "killed in an attack in Benghazi."

He called it an "outrageous and shocking attack." He talked about "brutal acts" And he added "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." He then turned to the commemoration of the 2001 9-11 attacks, saying, "of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9-11 attacks . . . I visited the graves of troops . . . no act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." He then called the Benghazi attack a "terrible act." That's it. Finished.

reply to post by PvtHudson


It really doesn't matter what Obama said in the Rose Garden. 3 days later Carney, Obama's spokesman, stated publicly that it was not a coordinated attack but it was a violent protest due to a Youtube video.
This lie was repeated by Hillary, Obama, Rice, and god knows how many other officials and media lap dogs.
Obama, never one to let a political opportunity pass by, tried his best to lay the blame on right wing religious extremists. They would still be repeating this lie if they were not called out and exposed as liars. Obama tried to make political hay and lay the blame on right wingers instead of taking the blame for his own administrations failures.

Thank god the truth finally came out. No thanks to Obama and his minions.

She is a reporter, so I think she IS right saying Obama said it was "act of terror". but didn't say it was a terrorist attack. That took a few weeks.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
She is a reporter, so I think she IS right saying Obama said it was "act of terror". but didn't say it was a terrorist attack. That took a few weeks.

Obama was talking generically about 9/11 and terrorist attacks. He wasn't calling Benghazi an terrorist attack. Which is undeniable when you consider the talking points for 2 weeks after that.

It would be more newsworthy to notify people when somebody wasnt lying or obfuscating.

I just assume when somebody is speaking on TV they are lying to me and repeating "I hate you" over and over in their head.

Have yet to be proven wrong in that assumption.

What has been revealed in the Congressional testimonies is that there was NO riot at the Consulate. Yet Mr Obama states that there was a riot, for several hours. Additionally, Mr Obama never called the murders of the September 11th attack "terrorists." Yet even Libya, the following morning after the attack, called it a terrorist attack. This will be brought out in the last Foreign Policy debate, and will not only shame Mr Obama, but prove what a lying, spineless, coward, he really is.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
She is a reporter, so I think she IS right saying Obama said it was "act of terror". but didn't say it was a terrorist attack. That took a few weeks.

My mother in law once threatened to move in with us. That was an an "act of terror." but certainly not a terrorist attack.
Words do mean things. What Obama really wanted us to believe was stated over and over again in the following 14 days. "Youtube Video" produced by right wing religious extremists/fanatics.

She should have never said anything and stayed neutral. She had no right interjecting
false information. When obama nudged her into answering she should of said
MR. POTUS i'm not quite for sure i will need to check that... She jumped right at the chance to back potus with a lie.

Since she has proven that she cannot be fair and objective in these debates, I say she should be permanently barred from them. A mediator should be fair and unbiased.

It was a classic Choke & Gag by Candy.

Her pre-programmed defense mechanism went from buzz mode directly into attack mode when she heard the statements.

Then at least she calmed down later but the "wrong word" excuse was a bit grade schoolish.

Par for the Liberal course.

CNN has some major re-positioning to do this week.

ATS where reality ceases to exist.
Right after the event, he called them terrorist acts.
It's a fact.
thinkprogress.org...
abcnews.go.com...

OMG, the whining from the cons...

Obama stated it was an act of terror on 9/12:
“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.”

and again on 9/13:
“And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

Get over it already. Crowley was 100% correct in confirming that fact. Your whining is bordering on the absurd. When Obama flubbed the first debate, libs blamed Obama. When Romney flubs the 2nd debate, the cons try to blame everyone else. PATHETIC.

Romney needs to listen to some one besides a blogger when he wants to get the facts. Or he will keep making a ass of himself. I thought Michele Bachmann was the only one who got her facts from bloggers.

reply to post by Macabe


And she did immediately also say that Romney was also correct that it was touted for two weeks about the video. Wingnuts would like to forget that Romney had a hand in selecting the moderator as well.

I will never get tired of posting this and throwing it in the Right Wingers face.

www.whitehouse.gov...

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.

It's right there, in plain english.

No spin away little conservative tornadoes.

The man who asked the Libya question was not answered by Obama btw.
Presidential debate: Libya questioner says Obama didn’t answer.
www.freerepublic.com...

Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

I enquired about this on the debate thread as I didn't hear an answer to a very important question. If you read the text of his response you know from the get-go Obama wasn't going to answer the question.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

Grade school social studies lecture and general bull #.

Romney would have been better off asking Obama to an answer the question posed than re-directing his attack IMHO.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


100% correct, Romney should have suggested the President answer the question because Obama didn't quite. He said ultimately he is responsible which isn't what Americans want to hear, we want to hear what exactly went wrong and how it was allowed to.

However, stringing up Crowley is just foolish... she was correct and IMO didn't step out of her bounds.

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.


Read more: www.politico.com...

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


And THAT is exactly what Obama does best isn't it ?

He made sure the question was deflected and diverted to something else.

He was a master clock eater.

He very seldom answers questions that have substance.

Questions on issues with meaningless and minimal impact he will answer in full of course because he has less chance of fumbling and gaffing.

reply to post by xuenchen

He very seldom answers questions that have substance.

And Romney answered so many with so many specifics, right?


Romney gets destroyed and the Right Wing has absolutely lost their mind.