President Obama went ballistic during the presidential debate at Hofstra University when Mitt Romney questioned the conduct of the administration in its reaction to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.
It was potentially a strong moment for the president as he was able, at least for the moment, to deflect concern about the administration’s failure in Libya and turn into a question of whether Romney overstepped the mark in his criticism. But a dispassionate look at the question on which the president made his grandstand play shows that his administration stands guilty of doing exactly what he denied.
The whole point about the administration spending more than two weeks trying to claim that the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was merely the result of an overheated reaction to an offensive film is that it dovetails with the political needs of the Obama re-election campaign.
We have yet to discover exactly what President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice knew about Libya and when they knew it as well as why the consulate’s requests for security were denied and who made that decision. The president was asked a direct question about that at Hofstra and chose not to answer it.
Though this issue was diverted into one largely about whether the president called the incident a terror attack the next day, what is being ignored is the fact that even though Obama uttered the word “terror” the following day, his administration spent the following days and weeks shouting down those who spoke of it as terrorism.
Their motivation wasn’t just the product of confusion about the available intelligence. It was the product of a desire to silence any speculation about the revival of al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 anniversary, U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked throughout the Middle East with American flags being torn down and replaced by al-Qaeda banners. Throughout the region, Islamist terrorism continues to fester and even gain strength in certain countries.
That’s a grim fact that not only needs to be acknowledged but understood as a major cause of the Libya disaster. But it is not something that the administration is comfortable saying because the keynote to the president’s foreign policy and security re-election platform is the notion that al-Qaeda is as dead as Osama bin Laden.
Having staked so much on the “bin Laden is dead” theme, the administration dragged its feet when it came to telling the truth about Islamist terrorism in Libya. They repeatedly claimed that the ambassador died as the result of film criticism run amuck. While they claim this was the result of faulty intelligence, there’s no mystery about why they embraced this false narrative so enthusiastically. Talking about an offensive anti-Muslim video (albeit one that virtually no one has actually seen) allowed the president’s foreign policy team to avoid saying the words “terror” and “al-Qaeda.” Instead, they talked about a movie for which they endlessly apologized. The president’s faux outrage notwithstanding, if that isn’t playing politics with security issues and misleading the American public, I don’t know what is.
"Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, said in her prepared testimony that she had a firm grasp on what happened in Benghazi, starting mere moments after the mission came under assault. 'When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the tactical operations center immediately… alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby … and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time,' Lamb explained". n nIf State could monitor, intelligence could monitor, and Obama, himself, could monitor- if he so chose to do so – but fundraisers and saving face far are more important than saving lives!
Candy Crowley caught in a lie~~~~~ n nOn 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.
Reporting was that for bureaucratic purposes of providing intelligence and military assets this was labeled an act of terrorism overnight internally. Then they went out and played politics. But Romney has to say that, not look at the liberal moderator for help.
True, but he was cut off. Crowley cut Romney off repeatedly throughout the debate, which is why they should consider less ideologically-bent moderators next time.
True, still, it has to be him. He's the only guy up there. But building on your point, why do the Republicans agree to show up unless they can balance out with a debate on their home ground–with Bret Hume etc. as moderator?
what I read just before the debate at the-american-interest.com n" wrm/2012/10/16/hillary-jumps-under-the-bus-but-cant-save-the-driver-from-himself/"
While Obama was talking about energy. I read that yet another green energy company, A123 Systems, a new battery technology company that received $250 million in Federal funding, just went under and is negotiating to sell itself to…….China, and partially to Johnson Controls, in the US.
An interesting question which I haven't seen raised: why was Romney so lame on the Libya question? Romney has clearly demonstrated that he has the type of mind that can digest facts and explain them in correct detail. Didn't he learn the time lines and details of the Libyan fiasco? If not, was this a failure of preparation? That's hard to imagine. The only answer I can offer is that he just got lost mentally, couldn't find his way to begin and end, and thus blew it. It certainly wasn't as bad as the Perry lapse, but if he had handled it as well as some of the questions about the economy, his debate victory last night would have been assured rather than a tie, bordering on a loss. Just enough to confirm what so many of us have been saying: the media will spin it as a comeback win for Obama. Oh well, who said things are easy in life anyway?
Lame? Mitt Romney got Obama to admit that he mislead the American people regarding the Libyan embassy attack. Candy Crowley disgracefully protected the president.
On account of Crowley's maneuver, Romney will be perfectly justified in taking an opportunity to clarify this entire matter next week, and draw further attention to Obama’s stinking mess. n nPersonally, I look forward to it.
she also said that the Obama administration had spent two weeks on the video story before bailing on it–but many people didn't hear because of applause for the first half and Obama's wisecrack…
If you follow the thread of the debate, I think that Romeny misspoke when he said that the president ":called it an act of terror'. He probably meant to emphasize that the PresidEnt did not call it an act of terror -and so, his argument was lost in the onsuing cross talk.Candy Crawley- who generally is pretty even handed-got lost in the same labyrinth but she should never have said "he did say it check the transcript- as a moderator she should have abstained from buttressing any argument.this will come back as a major component next week.
Shame on you for criticising the annointed one. I mean for playing politics.
When you are playing politics, denying it is just more playing politics. n nIt is sort of like the thoroughly biased media claiming they are not biased. n nIsn’t this post-modern age just great? n
The President has now said that he knew it was terrorism right away… flew to Las Vegas and from that point it was a video…. nThe infamous ridiculous video…. for our purposes the "Scapegoat Video" has been used to divert us from Obama's failures in foreign policy. n It hurt his narrative… (Usama dead..GM alive etc…) but the political wing of the POTUS used the video… but at what cost… increasing the rage against Christian Coptics in the Middle East… we already are seeing the results of " fast and furious " (selling guns to mexico gangs)….. nnow we have "Fasting and Furious"…. n imagine how many Coptics have been killed do the promotional/diversionary activities of this administration. n
Crawly was an Obama apologist and foil! The next debate will out BO for the liar he is re: BenghazieGate.
"And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief." Obama's indignation reminded me of W.C. Fields exclaiming, "Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch!" The same false bluster.
This is not what a transparent administration looks like.
My problem is that I live in California. Even if I voted 100 times (I'd like to AGAINST Obama), the liberals have this state tied up. So what good is my vote? Did the founders of this country know what they were doing when they set up national elections the way they are? I believe they did it out of the necessity to form the nation. The various states not wanting to give up their independence. So I guess you can blame King George for setting up the colonies the way that he did. Anyway, it's time for a change. I do, very badly, want to vote against that phony crook in the WH. But I want it to mean something.
Vandag1, I certainly know what you mean. I used to live in Rhode Island; with very few exceptions(my home city), the state is deeply and heavily blue. Voting during a presidential year felt so empty. Now I live in one of the nine major swing states and the contrast is remarkable. Furthermore, I live in a very conservative county which is loaded with Romney sighs. My house included, of course. Nice not to feel like a pariah.
It puts the greedy bastards at MSNBC in a bind. If Obama wins, they can't ALL get plum White House jobs, and why would they leave their 7 figure contracts to do so? Just to touch the hem of his garment?
Just saw quite a few houses with Romney yard signs and an empty chair next to the sign. This may become a trend in Ohio after the second debate.
The real problem with Pr. O is that we do not know how far to the left and how much pro Islamist he is. But what we have witnessed so far is already too much! nOnly the left behaves like an ostrich! R we really in a ZOO (US)? nBefore he won the presidency, NO ONE asked him what was his/our destination. It is clear that had we known, he would NOT have been the next President. nBut then McCain did not do a good job defending himself. It should have been Romney then and hopefully now. America cannot fail a 2nd time. nClinton counts on the poor memory of the US electorate. This time we will not forget. If she tries to run for the Pr., we will remind her 9/11/2012
Keyword is "senseless." In the fourth paragraph of his Rose Garden speech on 9/12, Obama characterizes the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans as a "type of senseless violence." John Wilkes Booth's assassination of President Lincoln was not "senseless violence," was it? Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy was not "senseless violence," was it? Look up the word, "mindless" and you will find the definition, "without discernible meaning or purpose" along with these synonyms: pointless, futile, useless, needless, unavailing, in vain, purposeless, meaningless, unprofitable; absurd, foolish, insane, stupid, idiotic, ridiculous, ludicrous, mindless, illogical. People stampeding Best Buy on Black Friday is "mindless violence." The premeditated and sustained and coordinated attack on the Libyan Consulate and the deliberate murder of these Americans by members of an Al Qaeda-linked group on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 was ANYTHING BUT "senseless violence"! It was carried out by terrorists whose act of terrorism had a point, purpose, meaning, etc. This was not the result of a mindless mob mentality that got out of control because religious sensitivities were offended by a YouTube video clip, which was the deceptive narrative of the Obama Administration from day one. I call BS on BO! "Senseless violence" my @ss!
Obama must have been *really* insufferable as an adolescent. He still is.
Correct–especially egregious was Obama's speech to the UN, in which not only did he repeat the lie 6 times, but threw our standard of freedom of speech under the bus, making it subservient to the whims of Muslim extremists who want a world-wide moratorium on criticing their religious leaders. In doing so, they would set themselves up as the only religious group with such precious requirements.
Talk about your toothless comebacks "I'm offended that you …" A good retort might be something like "Well that is progress. At least you are admitting what you did violates an important moral precept of civilized behavior. Now you just need to move on to admitting you did it."