And here’s how the left “fact-checks” Candy Crowley’s “fact-check”
[NOTE: Please read this post of mine first, if you’re unfamiliar with what happened last night when moderator Candy Crowley purported to fact-check Obama’s Rose Garden speech after Benghazi.]
It never pays to be naive about the left. And I don’t think that most readers on this blog are naive. So the subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which pundits on the left lead their flock should come as no surprise.
Case in point: Talking Points Memo covers the Crowley intervention in a shortish piece entitled “Candy Crowley Factchecks: Obama ”˜Did In Fact’ Say Libya Attack Was Terrorism.” Here is the entire text of the TPM article on the subject:
Debate moderator Candy Crowley interjected during Mitt Romney’s remarks in Tuesday’s presidential debate, saying that President Obama “did in fact” call the attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya an act of terror the day after the incident.
“I think it’s interesting, the president said something which is on the day after the attack he went in the Rose Garden — and said this was an act of terror,” Romney said, looking at Obama.
“That’s what I said,” Obama retorted.
“You said it was an act of terror, it was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?” Romney responded.
To which Crowley responded: “He did, in fact, sir. He did call it an act of terror. It did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of their being a riot out there about this tape to come out.”
Then a video follows.
To lazy readers (and that may be quite a few of them), or the true believers (many), writer Igor Bobic has offered what they want: a quick take on the subject, and a chance to add their own voices to the rah-rah go-get-im chatter in the comments section afterward.
What’s wrong with this picture? Why, the transcript of the Rose Garden speech is missing, of course.
But we don’t need no steenking facts—even when fact-checking. It works better that way, doesn’t it? And finding the transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden speech is oh so difficult (/sarcasm).
Make no mistake: writers on the left know exactly what they’re doing, playing their audience like a fiddle. You can hear the lovely music in TPM’s comments section.
Crowley said:
“To which Crowley responded: “He did, in fact, sir. He did call it an act of terror. It did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of their being a riot out there about this tape to come out.””
What in HELL was she trying to say with that “It did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of their being a riot out there about this tape to come out.”
I don’t understand it. What a BS attempt to recover from her terrible (for a “moderator”) mistake.
texexec: BS is the name of the game.
Crowley knows she will not be called to answer for what she did. She will be secretly (and not-so-secretly) applauded. CNN should fire her and she should be banned from White House correspondence and future debates, but do you for a moment think that either thing will happen?
Look at the quality of the comments on TPM and compare that those here. Their audience is largely made up of yahoos.
I didn’t notice until reading it now that Crowley’s “fact check” contains an almost instant rebuttal to the point that she tried to make. She’s a WH reporter and likely quite familar with the twists and turns of the WH responses to the Bengahzi attacks. I’m not surprised she had an instant recall of BHO’s Rose Garden remarks on 9/12. I also think she knew she couldn’t get too far out because of the subsequent WH storyline that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an otherwise unknow YouTube video. Hench the admission that the story changed over time.
I’m starting to agree with commentors that say Crowley did Obama no favor with this thirteen-man from-the-bench tackle. Instead of putting the issue on the back burner before the debate with a foreign policy emphasis, the whole WH response is now being timelined and combed over. And Romney is going to have the perfect forum to raise the issue again, with all the facts at his command.
I think Crowley did O and her MSM idolizers no favors by playing fast and lose with reality on Libya. This is the main story today and will be through the talk shows on Sunday morning. People who pay little attention are going to have little choice but to pay attention to this point over the next few days and right through to Nov. 6. They breathed life into it by introducing a whole new problem with the narrative; they unpacked the BS and added even more. O should have been focused on responding and moving on in an easily-digestible way. They did the exact opposite. Even worse, Romney is going to be armed to the teeth for this issue for the 3rd and final debate, but now he has a whole new angle to play — O and Crowley’s improper conspiracy to twist the facts even more. This is beyond unforced errors, this is sabotage. Too clever by half?
“. . . writers on the left know exactly what they’re doing, playing their audience like a fiddle.”
They may be playing the audience like a fiddle but wanna’ bet that come Nov 6th they find that their serenade is quite noticeably out of tune?
Furthermore, not only did Crowley allow the mask to slip once again–there’s no qurestion about her partiality, but she also revealed the mindset of the “independent” and “undecided” questioning audience when when they erupted in applause for her interference.
My astonished question is who are the Republican dimwits who continue to agree to these “unbiased” fora?
The transcript also contains this:
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”
Which seems to be an allusion to the video. So he made a vague reference to acts of terror and a vague reference to denigrating religious beliefs. He had a pretty good idea of what happened but covered both bases while waiting to see which way the wind was blowing.
Furthermore about the debate itself, I’ve come to the conclusion that conservatives and liberal look for different things so as to ascribe a winner/loser. My opinion is that Romney won because he was able to refute with facts everything that Obama said.
Liberals think Obama won. How? All he did was respond with rhetoric; ther were no facts in his presentations. it seems that for the left simply responding by saying “that’s incorrect” is a valid response. More and more I’m beginning believe that arguing with the left is like arguing/reasoning with a pubescent child. When confronted with facts they ignore them and respond with rhetoric. It’s not unlike sticking their fingers in their ears and sing-songing “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can’t hear you!” as if avoiding the facts makes facts go away.
Perhaps a more successful approach would be to just dictate:
Conservative: “Do it this way.”
Liberal: “Why?”
C: “Because I said so!”
L: “But that unfair.”
C: “When you grow up you can make your own rules, but only after you grow up.”
L: “Life stinks.”
C: “Go to your room and stay there until you learn how to behave.”
Actually on second thought it should be:
L: “Life stinks” (Throws a tantrum)
“”More and more I’m beginning believe that arguing with the left is like arguing/reasoning with a pubescent child.””
T
Mark Steyn says arguing with a lefty is like playing tennis with someone who says “Yea, but your ace is just a social construct”. 🙂
The Washington Post is undeterred.
If Romney is elected, he should see to it that Crowley never sets foot within a mile of the White House…and that if CNN wants to cover the White House, she should be fired.
…unless she apologizes for her obvious bias and inaccuracy…publicly.
SteveH Says at 3:26 pm,
“’More and more I’m beginning believe that arguing with the left is like arguing/reasoning with a pubescent child.'” — “T”
Mark Steyn says arguing with a lefty is like playing tennis with someone who says “Yea, but your ace is just a social construct”.
— — —
M J R adds, intending to eschew any tinge of political overtone or undertone:
Anyone who argues with a fool, ^is^ a fool.
[I quit arguing with fools long ago. Consequently, the fools are nonetheless no wiser than if I had engaged them in conversation, and (happily) I have more time in my life.]
this behavior was covered all the way back to George Kennan long telegram… where he said they focused so much on achieving power by ANY means they can get away with, they did not think as to governance… so once they achieve it, they cant run anything.
much like the dog that chases the car, expecting never to catch it. when he does, what does he do with it?
condensed from Thomas Sowell
Sowell remarks as to the level of chutzpah
to those not truly familiar with the more colorful side of yiddish (other than putz, schmuck, and so on… funny how you CAN say those words on tv but not their translations)
chutzpah is kind of like having big brass balls that clack bigger than even those with big brass balls that clack.
the BEST definition i have ever heard came from an example..
chutzpah is being on trial for murdering your parents, and wanting leniency for being an orphan…
🙂
but above, is the exact example of the “process”
he votes against the act and later collects the cream of it. but he lost… no bother, he still collects the cream, and dares his followers..
as i have said, if the left represents you, you are the dumb and gullible, lazy and cargo cult parts of our society.
they represent
gays, women, minorities, prisoners, criminals, wackos, etc…
they do so by fighting anything that shows lower IQ as established in studies, or increase mental problems and so on.
sadly, i dont want to put women in that category, but if they really were as smart as the men, they would not make themselves the top earners at the same time they are working to enslave top earners. no?
those that ARE smart, are irrelevant, as they are marginal to the whole monolithic thing. they may be against it, but the left leaders still vote their power as if they are not, and just one more mutually exclusive group under their umbrella aggregate.
(funny but you can read papers on these tactics, and things… too bad the ones being represented dont)
Saddest part is, that if one believes they are who they are, they are easily defeated…
if one doesn’t, then what?
they get to operate unopposed until things get so bad your beleif changes. but then its mostly too late…
you cant go back…
in fact, every student gets to read a required piece that explains that…
Cortez has burned the ships, the present has moved into the past, and the people who are needed to restore (the back up elderly ready for restore) are now about to be hastened to their demise by the state regulations matching Aktion T4 (and somewhat Aktion T14
My astonished question is who are the Republican dimwits who continue to agree to these “unbiased” fora?
ah, well. thats easy.
they werent republicans
in another article they point out that these undecideds were all Obama voters in 2008, who claimed not to be sure this time.
its called stacking the deck
to arrange things against someone or something. (Originally from card playing; stacking the deck is to cheat by arranging the cards to be dealt out to one’s advantage.)
Artfldgr,
I was referring to the Repub team which negotiated and agreed to the terms of the debates. And they seem to cave to the left cycle after cycle.
I believe “chutzpah” has a meaning similar to the English word “audacity”, especially its negative connotation.
Obama has the chutzpah to deceive at will. The audacity of deceit.
etymology: from Latin audÄx bold, from audÄ“re to dare
chutzpa
1. unmitigated effrontery or impudence; gall.
2. audacity; nerve.
– reference.com
Jews, especially Israelis, are well acquainted with individuals who exhibit excessive chutzpah.
Not coincidentally, it was Obama who recently popularized its usage in “the audacity of hope”.
The facade is cracking. The Washington Post is casting doubts about Team Obama’s credibility:
http://tinyurl.com/d23ckv4
On the debate issue the Dems are like Lucy and the football. They promise to be fair and unbiased and then they cheat. Time and again they pull the ball away.
Mr. Frank,
I expect that. What I don’t expect is for intelligent Republicans to play the part of Charlie Brown year after year.
Driving into work today NPR was pushing this issue BIGTIME for Obama. Had serveral guests on saying Obama/Crowley was correct. My local NPR station is having a fund raising campaign. After listening to this crap I called. A woman asked how much I would like to pledge. I told her I’m already a sustained member. I give every 2 weeks from my taxes taken from from paycheck but hope I can stop that soon.
SHE HUNG UP ON ME!
I found that The White House has two different pages for the 9-12/12 Rose Garden statement.
One has the video and a shortened version of the statement I guess hoping people would read the few paragraphs containing no mention of the original 9/11 attacks rather than watch the full 5 and half minute statement. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi#transcript
The othe is the long version statement that I think is very clear that Obama set the tone by speaking about 9-11/2001 and visiting graves of all those who’d lost their lives that day. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
I don’t know how anyone could think he was talking about 9/11 Benghazi when those Americans had not yet been buried and, thus, there were no graves to visit.
A Jewish friend points out to me that “chutzpah” is murdering your parents, and then placing yourself at the mercy of the court because you’re an orphan.
“Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. . . . And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
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.”
Obama’s reading is possible, especially given that “this attack in Benghazi” phrase occurs closer to “acts of terror.” Also, act(s) is plural giving rise to an interpretation that both incidents are referred to.
But that should be a minor point because Obama and his spokespersons for long days and weeks afterwards never referred to the attack as terrorism but as reaction to a video.
Grant that the point is possible, and move on to why it wasn’t clarified and re-stated, but on the contrary completely abandoned until it was evident it could not be supported.
A very interesting posting I stumbled across on rightscoop.com (emphasis mine):
ObamaPelosi Yesterday 04:37 AM in reply to p m
BREAKING NEWS*******BREAKING NEWS*****
There is a bigger point that I’m not sure most people caught, but this is very important. It began when Romney asked Obama if he said that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror in the Rose Garden. Here is the transcript of exactly what was said:
1. ROMNEY: I think interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
2. OBAMA: That’s what I said.
3. ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?
4. OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
5. 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.
6. OBAMA: Get the transcript.7. CROWLEY: It – it – it – he did in fact, sir. So let me – let me call it an act of terror…
7. OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
8. CROWLEY: He – he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take – it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
Everyone. please look at number 4 and number 6. When Romney asks Obama if he’s saying it’s not a spontaneous demonstration, Obama says, “Please proceed governor.” Then while Mitt Romney continues to speak, Obama basically orders Candy Crowley to “Get the transcript”. What the heck is that???? Looks like Obama knew that Candy would back him up on this and he ordered her to “get the transcript”? Whereafter, Crowley says he did say it was an act of terror. Well, that has been debunked by John Nolte. It was nothing but semantics. Obama is so brazen. I think Crowley definitely gave Obama the topics to be discussed. Obama was too prepared for these questions. When he relied on Crowley to “Get the Transcript” that showed indisputably that Obama and Crowley were in on this together. This is a scandal and must be rooted out and must be known to everyone. This debate was a setup and Obama cheated with the help of Candy Crowley. Please pass this along.
It’s interesting how this parallels the “you didn’t build that” flap. In both cases Obama sorta has an out if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say well the antecedent isn’t clear. But the *context* gives him away. In the YDBT speech he sneered at entreprenuers, expressing his disdain for them by saying “they think they’re smarter and harder working than everybody else, well a lot of people are smart and hard working”. And of course on Benghazi he insisted for over a week afterward that the attack was caused by the video.
I think the RNC has to demand some changes from the Presidential Debate Commission in upcoming elections. First, no more townhall debates. You can’t put together a representative sample of Americans, the question selection & restatement makes in a farce, and frankly, someone who is so uninformed that they’re still undecided a month before the election should not be elevated to questioner.
Second, stop using journalists as moderators. I’d suggest someone from C-SPAN (Brian Lamb), or maybe a professional mediators. The MSM has proven itself unfit to handle this, and clearly there’s too much ego involved in playing this role. They’re too involved in the process to be considered impartial.
Third, something has to be done about the marked difference in interruptions, time allowed to speak, and who is given the last word on a given topic – anyone have ideas on this?
I missed the part where she stepped in and corrected Obama’s claim that Romney has a one point plan. He clearly has a five point plan. Why did she so blatantly let that pass? Where’s the principle she was operating under?
Obama has laid a trap via the straw man: “I said ‘act of terror’ on 9/12”.
No one cares if Obama did or did not say “act of terror”. Its a straw man.
The issue is whether or not the Obama Admin misled American citizens as to whether or not the Benghazi attack was preplanned.
If Obama can shift the conversation into an argument over whether or not he said “act of terror”, then Obama can wriggle out of voter condemnation for failing to acknowledge that the attack was preplanned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Something else:
I have now watched the entire video of the Rose Garden speech. To my surprise, it is my judgement that Obama said “act of terror” in a way which he intended to be connected to both 9/11 and Benghazi. That is my opinion.
But, the thing which is truly relevant: if Obama claims that he intended “act of terror” to relate to Benghazi, then Obama opponents will NEVER be able to prove otherwise in the court of public opinion. Can’t be done; can’t be proven otherwise. Obama will win that argument.
But, my larger point: that argument is a straw man. Obama has laid a skillful trap. The true argument is over whether or Obama misled American citizens as to whether or not the Benghazi attack was preplanned.*
*Obama apologists falsely claimed/inferred that the attack equated to:
1] violent Libyans
2] who possessed military quality weapons
3] capitalizing upon a spontaneous opportunity which presented itself when ordinary Libyans began protesting the video preview.
The violent Libyans then committed an act of terror. Obama has always admitted that, doncha know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
during the debate forum, I said that Obama – in the Rose Garden statement – used “act of terror” in an out of context fashion. I said this b/c I had read other bloggers who asserted that. I had not, at that time, seen the statement for myself.
Now that I have seen the statement for myself, I have changed my mind. I am now of the opinion that Obama plausibly used “act of terror” in relation to both 9/11/01 and 9/11/12. Which means exactly nothing. Except that Obama is using that as a straw man and a trap. This is Obama’s “depends on what the meaning of is is.” No, it doesn’t. This is a magician’s deception at work.
btw, I am saying sort of the same thing which Gary Rosen already said, only he said it in fewer words.
gcotharn: see my new post for an attempt to “prove” Obama did not mean to refer to Benghazi as an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech.
Knowing, of course, that as you say, there’s no way to prove it. But I think I may have come pretty darn close. Others may differ.