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

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Sparky63

 

I specifically used the term, "Obama Administration". Those quotes by Carny on day 3 after the attack are easily found and I'm sure you have already seen them,

Please Proceed.

Google them yourself if you are truly interested, I have better things to do. I am not inclined to discuss this further with you as it is clear your opinion is not likely to change.
The truth is evident for all but the loyal supporters of Obama. They agenda is to protect the president at all costs.

reply to post by HostileApostle


Here's something I promise you will never come out publicly about this "investigation".

The Libya attack was planned starting in June 2012, if not sooner.

Al Qaeda publicly came out and told the Muslim Brotherhood that they were taking too long in spreading "political Islam" throughout the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood assisted in helping Al Qaeda to cover up the truth in Libya by starting this whole "let's blame it on the Muslim video and start riots in Egypt to distract from what's really getting ready to go down".

The truth is, the Muslim Brotherhood is in on it too and Obama's going to regret the day he helped them to assume power in the Middle East.

Just wait, before it's all said and done, Al Qaeda will assist the Muslim Brotherhood in taking over Syria too in their joint effort in spreading "political Islam".

The unfortunate thing about this whole facade of unity between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda is that it's going to backfire when they turn on each other to decide who's going to ultimately rule over this new regional Islamic government that they've been proposing for the last couple of years.

and
CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack

CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack
Email this Story

Oct 19, 3:28 AM (ET)

By KIMBERLY DOZIER
apnews.myway.com...

WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

reply to post by Sparky63


So you can't provide any examples.

That's what I thought.

Dumb betch is Aleister Crowley in drag. Think about it.

I always though that it may have an assassination that the ambassador knew to much,

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

The official position is that the US has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out heavy weapons from Libya.

In any case, the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is stronger than has been officially acknowledged.

ABC, NBC Enable Obama's Libya Lie, Day 3; Media Cover-up Continues Ahead of Foreign Policy Debate

Read more: newsbusters.org...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
ABC, NBC Enable Obama's Libya Lie, Day 3; Media Cover-up Continues Ahead of Foreign Policy Debate

Read more: newsbusters.org...

Yeah - - no bias there

NEWS BUSTERS - - Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene" en.wikipedia.org...

so after all this, He still said it was an act of terror. It was much later that he called it a terrorist act. I cant wait for this to be over so [/sarcasm on] those who vote obama can hide in their tents with food stamps, the the rest can go back to being racist [/sarcasm off]

both are liars and the entire media helps obama get away with it.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Sparky63

 

So you can't provide any examples.

That's what I thought.

Very well. although this has been posted ad nauseam.
Here is Carney.



Here is Rice:


I am sure you are familiar with these. Rice and Carney both lied. They were speaking in behalf of Obama and his administration. There will no changing the minds of the Obama supporters here. I am not an Obama supporter nor am I a Romney supporter. I have no agenda other than the truth. The evidence supports the fact that Obama and his administration attempted a cover up. They willfully lied to the American people.

Here is Obama's speech to the UN 2 weeks after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi.

Jump to 9:45 to hear him start to blame the video. Then jump to 13:50 to hear him specifically blame the video for the attack on the Embassy.



Obama set the context by opening with a discussion of the dead ambassador.

2 weeks after the Al Queda attack he was still blaming the video. Obama was lying his @ss off.

Originally posted by PvtHudson
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.

edit on Wed Oct 17 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: EX TAGS\ IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

Ummm...did you watch the video? She pretty clearly states that she still contends that Obama called it "an act of terror" on September 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden...but that the Act of Terror was attributed to the spontaneous rioting as opposed to being a pre-orchestrated attack.

Sooo....what's you're point? Romney is still wrong. Obama DID refer to it as an act of terror on September 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden. Here is the video of Obama doing just that.



So what are you really so bent out of shape about? That Obama didn't refer to it as the exact right kind of terrorist attack for you? If you have a problem with this...what do you think about the 9-11 Commission??

reply to post by PvtHudson


because a republican moderator wouldn't do they same thing if he/she was as stupid as this woman.

reply to post by Lever1

It is the moderator's right to answer a direct question

This is not the role of the moderator. The role of moderator is to make sure the debaters are given equitable time, and to moderate time for answers and rebuttals, not to argue with the debaters and take sides with one or the other. She was outrageous, as was Martha.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Lever1

 

It is the moderator's right to answer a direct question

This is not the role of the moderator. The role of moderator is to make sure the debaters are given equitable time, and to moderate time for answers and rebuttals, not to argue with the debaters and take sides with one or the other. She was outrageous, as was Martha.

You're just mad because she called Romney out on his lie.

I'm glad she has fortitude -

You support lies and the suppression of truth

reply to post by campanionator

You're just mad because she called Romney out on his lie.

Au contraire, I am not mad at all. It is rather amusing to see the liberals siding with the Prez and doing it publicly when they are supposed to be moderating in an unbiased atmosphere. She flubbed her job completely. It was not her job to prove the Prez right. Is Obama unable to do this without her help? Perhaps, and if so then why are libs claiming he won the debate?

Her bias is obvious and everyone knows it.

As for truth, you will never know just how for truth I AM but nothing I say here will prove it to people who are so in the tank for the Marxist Progressive. Only the Universal Mind of God knows where I stand.