It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Crowley's Interventions Swung the Debate in Obama's favor

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Well, let's actually look at what Obama said...

...speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that “we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Stop right there with the BS...See what you did there?

...speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that

You didn't offer actual transcripts or context...but inserted BS telling us what he was referring to.

There were two things going on...(1) Protests around the middle east including violent protests at other US Embassies AND (2) The specific attack at the Embassy in Benghazi...

STOP THE is a clue " these brutal acts"....THESE...PLURAL...Protests around the Middle East.

HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE PLURAL "THESE" which did in fact involve protests around the middle east about the film.
edit on 18-10-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by mobiusmale

This interpretation is borne out by the next two weeks full of official Government statements (including more by Obama) claiming that this was not a terrorist attack, but only a mob's reaction to an anti-Islamic video.

Nope...Obama never claimed it was not a terroist attack. Seroiusly...get you facts straight.

The media claimed a lot of things and it is not the practice of the intelligence community to fill the media in on classified information in a breaking investigation.

The most concrete evidence that your BS has is the Ambassador to the UN giving an interview where she clearly cautioned that she did not know.

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

So the ambassador to the UN...Not the FBI, Not the CIA, Not any of the alphabet agencies assigned to investigat makes a highly qualified guess that it was a terroist attack, but began as a protest....and starts and ends her statement with...I don't know qualifiers.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:48 AM
You can spin away here all you like. This history is far too recent for you to try and claim what we just experienced is not so. All of us know how this story was presented to us. The lies and obfuscations will only make us more angry about this situation. This is disgusting and will get you no where.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by mobiusmale

Let's not make it something it's not. "questions she handpicked" that's how it always is, there is huge agreements between the two candidates at these things. They are complete productions.

Why can't you guys understand that these things are scripted, and fake. FAKE.

OP did you read the leaked agreement released prior to the debate? DId you watch the documentary on presidential debates posted multiple times in multiple threads here? We have no control overthe outcome. These things are just to get people to participate because it's harder to cover up with not enough. Catch my meaning?

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:03 PM
These really aren't debates. The rules make it clear on that from the outset.

They're poodle shows, nothing more, nothing less. Trained poodles reciting carefully rehearsed answers to carefully vetted, carefully chosen questions.


posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:08 PM
Here comes the obfuscation crew, so predictable. This just happened kids. No amount of distraction will work. We know how this was presented to us, we remember.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:10 PM
And yet, even though many are crowing about how Obama won this round.

Romney's numbers keep growing...even in the swing states.

I think it would be hilarious if Johnson were to win the popular vote by a landslide. How would the electoral vote go if that were the case?

How would Congress react?

OH NOOOooos!

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
You can spin away here all you like. This history is far too recent for you to try and claim what we just experienced is not so. All of us know how this story was presented to us.

"spin" "What we experienced" "all of us know how this story was presented to us"...

YES...By an eager media and a politically motivated right wing.

As far as the POTUS, FBI, CIA etc. ...they have been all business and just because the media constructed a story that didn't pan out or the right wing constructed a story for political purposes...doesn't change reality.

Of course...OF COURSE...the FBI, CIA etc aren't sharing details and the media and right wing had to make thier own story. It's an ONGOING OPERATION AND INVESTIGATION.

BUT it is the utter hieght of insanity for the media and right wing agendists to construct a story and then accuse the President for either not sharing classified information to disabuse them of the story or to accuse the President of constructing the story that they themselves created.

Protests at multiple embassies...and the attack on the Behngazi consulate. The President, the CIA, the FBI, Hillary Clinton...they never once called the Behngazi attack a protest gone awry. The President refered to it as an "Act of Terror" the day after. They have also all commented on the film and riots in the Middle East.

Can't blame the media for making the connection and I expect the right wing to paint the story that advantages them best, but it isn't the Presidents job to go all political and disclose classified info in ongoing investigation to let them know they are wrong.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
this story was presented to us.

It sure the the right wing during an election season...but please show me when the President said anything of the sort.

Tough crap...the media got it wrong...the right wing got it wrong...and they want to blame the POTUS for thier assumptions.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:20 PM

The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism’s equivalent of a replacement referee’s worst call.

Why? He did just that. A simple YouTube search for "Obama act of terror sept 12 rose garden" will pull up the results that you need.

William Bigelow, writing for Breitbart.TV, noted that she had interrupted Obama 9 times. She interrupted Romney 28 times

Maybe the guy should stop lying so much.

I was quite literally shocked when, at one point, Romney stood up to deliver a standard rebuttal to an Obama delivery - but Crowley told him to sit back down because she wanted to move she said, many questioners had been waiting all day for their chance to ask (questions she had hand-picked)...

What is the time during the debate where that happened? I'd like to review the tape myself.

I also clearly remember her locking in on Romney and saying, "But Mr. Romney...what if your numbers don't add up, will you reconsider your policies?"

A fair question since both Romney and Ryan steadfastly refuse to share their secret mathematical formula with the country. If they actually told people what their financial plan was the question wouldn't need to be asked.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:39 PM
If a debate moderator can so easily steal the debate from a candidate then that candidate probably isn`t worthy or qualified to be president.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:51 PM
All of the moderators and questions are already pre-determined and agreed upon by both parties.

Romney kept going over time

Romney was wrong about the Libya thing

End of story.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by mobiusmale

Who cares.

She cut both candidates off at critical times. She cut Obama and Romney off equally...

Your math is awful if you think 9 and 28 are equal.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by mobiusmale
reply to post by daaskapital


If 9 equals 28, you are right on the money.

Means nothing. If Football team A is judged to have fouled 28 times, and Football team B is judged to have fouled 9 times, does that mean the referees are biased in favour of Football team A?

No. It tells us nothing without any context.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by 3chainz
All of the moderators and questions are already pre-determined and agreed upon by both parties.

Romney kept going over time

Romney was wrong about the Libya thing

End of story.

Obama got 4 minutes more speaking time than Romney. Libya... ha you think we are going to fall for this new spin... keep up the lies. His poll numbers continue to slide. We aren't buying what you are selling.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Indigo5

Look at what Romney said again...
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." "

He didn't say "administration" or "UN Ambassador" ...he said the President took 14 days to call it an act of terror and that he didn't call it that at the rose garden speech the day after.

FALSE on every bit of the claim. If he wanted to talk about inferences by the UN Ambassador then he should have. For effs sake he was pretty exact in calling the President a liar on the matter...Candy appropriately told him what was in the transcript.

If you are going to shoot for a "Gotcha" moment by calling the President a lair in front of Millions of people...then you better be right. HE WAS WRONG...REALITY and TRANSCRIPTS. Tough SH*&

Stop whining.

If Candy Crowley stating the sky is blue is a problem for Romney...then he is the saddest candidate for POTUS we have seen in a long time.
edit on 18-10-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

What does Crowley, the moderator say?

“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.

The moderator herself says Romney was RIGHT with what he said. So how are you calling Romney wrong when the moderator said he was right, she knew he was right, but couldn't help herself in trying to make him look bad.

ETA: Since we are playing semantics like Crowley and you Democrats are, TECHNICALLY Obama called 9/11 an act of terror, not Benghazi. The phrase was used immediately following comments about 9/11. Maybe you can look up the phrase he used after mentioning Benghazi, if my memory serves me right terror was not one of them.
edit on 18-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

They know it is a lie. They are just perpetuating it to obfuscate Obama's culpability in this situation. Fortunately the public is not buying what they are selling as evidenced by the recent polls. It's hard to alter the truth this soon after such a horrendous event has shocked and disturbed the public. Unfortunately for them time is not on their side with this situation. We still remember exactly the timeline and what they told us.

Amazing how they can be so up to the second on every single bit of polling and information about the election, but somehow getting information about a devastating terrorist attack is painfully slow...

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:28 PM
Folks, face it, the Obama team lost the debate. Romneys numbers keep climbing regardless of the spin.

I can imagine that debate III will have different rules if Obama wants a chance at the election.
Obama - 45 minutes speaking time
Moderator - 45 minutes speaking time
Romney - Just sit there and shut up!

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in