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

Lets Split some more hairs please "these acts of terror" is what he said, and to give the president the benefit, early on they said over and over, this is still being investigated, which to me is appropriate, now whether the field intelligence was correct we do not know.

Everyone sitting at their nice comfy couch really thinks they do know everything and what the press reports is what they are on here using as their facts, but we all know that is not a highly reliable source, because it is based on witnesses saying what they saw and we do not know the reliability of those at the location, especially if they are foreign nationals.

Remember , the FBI was not able to get a team there for almost 2-3 weeks, this was a crime scene that everyone had a chance to contaminate and also steal whatever other evidence that was there.

Mitt Romney is way out of line and so are those who are not at the intelligence briefings or even part of the intelligence community briefings to insinuate the administration was intentionally lying from the beginning, it is clear they were basing their reports on the information available and possibly what was only fully verified, which was the movie is what caused the attack, they did not have enough verifiable evidence vetted and readily available provided by the national intelligence center to say beyond a shadow of a doubt the first day or two to back that up to say it was a concerted attack and the movie had absolutely nothing to do with it because the movie did play a role, as cover.

The amazing thing that I just found out is that when Romney left office as governor, he had much less women working for him that what he stated in the debate.
Wow, can that governor stretch things, it was down to 25% women!

reply to post by sealing


Unfortunately, you seemed to have provided a link that provides facts contrary to your statement that Obama called the Benghazi event a "terrorist attack".

The ABC article you posted-- link to source here-- dated 9/26/2012, states at the beginning of the second paragraph, "White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed today that the president believes the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a "terrorist attack," a term Obama has not yet used in his characterization of the violence."

Maybe you could give us better insight in to where you found a statement within this article that supports your original statement

Well here we go with another round of "MY GUY DOESN'T LIE BUT YOURS DOES" crap load.

Years and years and years and years of this farce.

They all lie.

Deal with it and move on.

Find the truth for yourself and don't buy the party line. regardless of which party it is, it's going to be a lie.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


If the liberal media is "The Whore of Babylon," then Fox News and and the right wing media outlets are Satan himself, The "Father of Lies."

Obama struck the word "terrororist" from the White House vernacular as soon as he became President.
He chose instead to refer to them as enemy combatants and gave them a more PC friendly label so as to not offend the terrorist. As if they give a rats arse one way or another.

It was Michelle Obama who broke the rule when she started hooting, hollering and clapping after that Candy moment, and others just followed.

Candy got hypnotized by Obama and couldn't help herself. As a result, she did something she later regretted.

We should all learn a big lesson from this, dont let yourself get hypnotized by Obama, snap out of it, before you do something you will surely regret.
A mistake like that should never be repeated by anyone, especilally on election day.

The debate was a major CNN failure because afterwards we are all talking more about Candy Crowley, than we are about Romney or Obama.

reply to post by PvtHudson


Not quite. She said he was "right in the main" but that is assuming she was supposed to know where he was leading with the comment and she wasn't. Now she knows what he meant but at the time she didn't. Nobody did but him.
CC said Mitt Romney was right "in the main" but not right with "the facts."

Unfortunately "the main" is really just a lot of little "facts" that add up.
If you can't get your little "facts" straight how can you presume your "main" is right?
CC would have had to make a lot of inferences and assumptions in order to satisfy that the main assumption (which only Mitt knows what he suspects) was correct.

Obama did call the attack a TERROR attack in the Rose Garden. The question was about the use of the word TERROR. Romney was arguing over use of the word and calling it a TERROR attack which Obama did. That's what I thought, what CC thought and that's what everyone who isn't blaming the President for failed security thought.

Mitt said, "He did not call it a terror attack." And FACT IS - YES, HE DID!

If Romney thinks the White House should be held to task for ignoring intel and losing 4 lives, I'd say that was a double standard.

Where was the backlash when GWB ignored intel and lost 4000 lives and counting? (And those are just American lives) Not to mention he ignored intel, lost upwards of 4000 lives and bankrupted the country to the point where we still haven't recovered. Why does that get a Hail Mary pass while in this case with Obama we are calling for a court marshal and an inquisition?

its actually sick.

they are using the deaths of 4 americans to attack each other.

they spent more time quibbling and arguing on who "cares" more than either of one of them spent calling or consoling the widows and family members of the slain diplomats.

they care more about on whether or not it was caused by a stupid movie or when he said it was a terror attack than the feelings and grieving of the families, who were probably watching this on t.v. and the insincerity it projected.

snakes. both of them. you're voting for 2 cold-hearted and compassionless "people".

its in quotations because i think you have to be human to qualify as a people.

Here's a story about Candy and Axelrod.....

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after.

"First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.

This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side......

Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'

When Axelrod tried to tell Crowley that the "president called it an act of terror the day after it happened," Crowley rejected the spin and corrected Axelrod, telling him that Obama said the the attacks were not "planned" and was "part of this tape," in reference to the obscure anti-Muhammad Internet video the Obama administration blamed:

CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.

AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that that was given to us. What we don't need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.

There's more to it ..... read the story.

reply to post by newcovenant


Not so fast.

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,”

We could debate this issue till Candy regains her credibility, but the facts are:
He initially blamed it on the YouTube video.
He was doing a fund raiser in Vegas while Chris Stevens was being dragged through the streets of Benghazi.
He may have used the word "terror" while making a generalized statement regarding any act of terror, but that same statement did not include the words "Libya" or "Benghazi".

Well, CNN is clearly pro democrat. So I say next time Fox news gets to pick the next moderator from their staff. And they will be holding a republican stop watch this time.

Do you want a real conspiracy? Perhaps it was plotted in advance that Candy would pull a stunt like she did. In fact the word around the block is that her stunt changed who was the winner of the debate. Whoopsie! But how convenient for Obama! Has anyone even thought about this?

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Not so fast.

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,”

We could debate this issue till Candy regains her credibility, but the facts are:
He initially blamed it on the YouTube video.
He was doing a fund raiser in Vegas while Chris Stevens was being dragged through the streets of Benghazi.
He may have used the word "terror" while making a generalized statement regarding any act of terror, but that same statement did not include the words "Libya" or "Benghazi".

Let's assume for a moment everything you said is true.

So what?

It gets so tiring to keep having to call BULL#!@T on the desperate hijacked "Republican" supporters. Ms. Crowley did not backtrack/apologize/change her story about what she said during the debate:

On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said that Crowley had already taken back the first part of that statement. “The moderator said that she — that he was right in the main on this, that she wasn’t correct in pointing out that he made reference to this being a specific terrorist attack,” he said.
What Crowley said on CNN after the debate: Romney “was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.” But on the same network Wednesday morning, she said she was in no way taking back her original interjection.
“Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you actually last night,” she told Soledad O’Brian. “[W]e got hung up on this ‘yes he said,’ ‘no I didn’t,’ ‘I said terror,’ ‘you didn’t say terror.’ … So I said, [President Obama] did say ‘acts of terror, call it an act of terror, but Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.’”
Asked if that was a backtrack, Crowley said, “No. The question was — we got so stuck on that ‘act of terror.’ Now, did the President say this was an act of terror? The president did not say — he said ‘these acts of terror,’ but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi, so I don’t think that’s a leap.” (The exact phrase Obama used: “no acts of terror.”)

Basically some people are simply too dense, perhaps stubborn, to understand what they are reading. They mean well perhaps, but focus on only a word or a sentence and can't (or won't) comprehend more than that.

FAIL by Rombot on stage, FAIL by Ryan trying to spin up another smoke screen, only ending up digging a deeper hole.

People are seeing through this "Republican" charade that they were hoping would hold up until elections, more people are seeing this duo of shysters for what they are, that they were paid for and put in place by the likes of people such as the lovable Kochs to buy an election. The lovable Koch brothers who threaten their employees with layoffs if Obama wins. Unless you too are in this elite 1% don't kid yourself that they care for you any more than the 47% they scorn behind closed doors.

What don't you understand?

Romney specifically asked if Obama called it "an act of terror" the next day. Those were Mitt Romney's words. Romney did NOT say terrorist attack.

Romney was wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Obama called it an "act of terror" the very next day.

ROMNEY: You said in the rose garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror, it was not a spontaneous demonstration?

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.

Originally posted by Macabe
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.

The problem is, Obama failed to call it a "terrorist act" from the beginning. He played a word game [his administration], using the general wording an "act of terror", manipulating the media to report that the protests were due to the video, over & over again for 2 weeks....

A "terrorist attack" is much more serious as it is an organized attack on a specific target.
THAT is what Obama failed at acknowledging to the public.
Instead, he went off gallivanting to Vegas and Colorado campaigning the next day.

Had Romney worded it correctly, that Obama did not call it a terrorist attack until 2 weeks later, he would have been correct. Instead he made the mistake of saying act of terror.....which Obama did say.

Unfortunately, that question didn't sway me one way or another.
Romney was wrong in his wording, trying to trip up Obama.
And yet, Obama looks weak not calling it correctly from the get go.....terrorist attack.

Maybe if he didn't miss so many Security Briefing meetings, he would have been on the ball.

If Obama gets re-elected, will he ever accept any of the blame? Or will he keep on making excuses and blame others for his lack of progress?
After Hillary tried to take the blame for Obama, and the press was bashing him, then he finally stepped up and said it was his fault. AFTER the fact though and the heat was on him....

Can't play the Blame Game forever, Obama.....need to learn to take on the responsibility of POTUS.
And fulfill the promises you made in 2008...

reply to post by xuenchen


Man, this stuff will drive you crazy!!!!

Tit for tat...

He said, she said....blah, blah, blah.

Kinda hard to truly enjoy a debate when the moderator is obviously for one party or the other.

Then the "spin" games begin from the MSM....very annoying.

Thanks for the article, very informative one might say....

I'm Canadian. You can make fun of that all you want, if you wish to do so.

I cannot help but see the manipulation that has been impressed upon my fellow Americans. In fact it's being pressed upon Canadians as well.

Do you not remember that after Bush people still believed in the political system....even after fraud was proven (especially in Florida).

I remember watching television in college with hundreds of other classmates as the inauguration of Obama proceeded. Everyone was in awe... All I could think of was how out of place of was because I knew how skewed politics are.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. Well actually maybe it does.... But the peoples "vote" does not matter because we live in a plutocracy.... A system where the government does not answer to the people but the corporations and ultra rich.

I truly hope that the members who are choosing between the "left" and the 'right" understand that they do NOT answer to YOU. Surely this is an evident fact!

There is no left wing or right wing .... there is only authoritarianism.

What most of us want is a mix. Authoritarianism and humanitarianism. At least SOMETHING to give us a balance between people and corporations!

In the mean time, as Gerald Celente said, "I am a political atheist".

-AS-

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

edit on 17-10-2012 by sealing because: (no reason given)

See, here's the problem with this: If he, indeed, called them terrorist acts right after the Embassy attack then he has a problem with the statement that Intelligence gave them inaccurate information and Biden's claim during the debate:"We didn't know".

So, Obama's backed into a corner either way.

Candy Crowley should've stayed out of the fray and let the two hammer it out. The only thing she should have done is said 'time's up, next question'. The fact-checking begins AFTER the debate.

I like Candy Crowley and watch CNN but she was in the wrong.