Free Markets, Free People

How Obama’s claim (and Crowley’s intervention) will likely backfire

Why? Because it sets up a question to be answered which will give proof to the nonsense of both Obama and Crowley’s claim about Obama’s supposed Rose Garden acknowlegement that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism:

If Obama knew it was terrorism on Day Two, then why did his administration continue to blame the video for days afterward?”




Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to How Obama’s claim (and Crowley’s intervention) will likely backfire

  • Assuming the question will actually be asked…..

    • This.
      If anything, the question will be about how the media finally stood up to Romney’s lies.  Never mind that Romney was essentially right.
      Or maybe it will be spun as the media’s fault that Obama is not correctly understood due to their bad reporting.  The last thing I expect is for this to turn into how a commentary on how bad Obama’s wishful thinking foreign policy is.

      • I dont care if either candidate was telling bald face lies.  IT IS NOT the job of the moderator to take sides.  That is like a referee tackling someone with the ball.   It isnt done.

  • Backfiring proceeding apace.
    This actually breaths new life into this scandal…or series of scandals to be more correct.
    Moochelle may have clapped (against the rules, BTW), but the Barry/Creepy Crowley tag team will prove a net looser.

  • I thought Romney’s facial expressions were priceless when he asked Obama if he was certain about his Rose Garden statement.  And mentioned he wanted it noted for the record, before Candy decided using a word in any old context is all that’s required  After all!  Barack said the word terror somewhere in his rambling address from the Rose Garden.
    That means he was saying the Benghazi attack was a terror attack and wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration and wasn’t caused by the video,  and even though for the next 5-10 days they claimed it was the video that caused it doesn’t mean jack…and we’re all just getting wee wee’d up and we don’t understand the nuances of ‘leadership’, and he’s going to investigate, and he’s going to find those guys and he’s going to punish them.
    Meanwhile back at the ranch, America is instituting a new policy nationwide, though we CAN prevent things, we are no longer into prevention.
    We’re into cleaning up problems we could have prevented and calling it good leadership.
    In the case of Benghazi, ‘let me be clear’ we’re going to investigate, apprehend, and punish.
    Along those lines then, we’ll probably let anyone drill anywhere for anything without regulation and punish them later if they pollute.  Bank Regulation?  Bah!  We’ll just wait till they commit a crime and punish them for it.  Free government mandated contraception?  that’s preventative, (pun intended) screw that!

    • What’s worse is that Crowley claimed during her “fact check” that Obama had claimed it to be an “act of terror” in the Rose Garden, and then evolved the story to the YouTube video of the next 10 days or so … which is completely wrong.
      Then she started to claim it the other way around on the day after, but it was still an “act of terror” or something.

  • Sorry McQ – I told you the question wouldn’t really be asked. The hot new “scandal” is BINDERGATE. No room to discuss any unimportant issues now.

  • So he said it was a terrorist attack on sovereign American territory that resulted in the murder of four American citizens and
    Bam Bam flies to Las Vegas for a fund raising trip.
    He sure is taking a terrorist attack seriously.

  • If the left is going to circle the wagons around Candy Crowley, they’re going to need a lot more wagons, I think.