Friday, October 19, 2012

October 19, 2012

The Number of Obama Supporters Who Have Never Heard of the 9/11 Benghazi Attack Will Terrify You
by Jason Howerton
October 18, 2012

Americans everywhere are wondering how the Obama administration will be able to recover from such a significant and deadly intelligence error in Benghazi, Libya. The White House reportedly ignored multiple calls for additional security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, even after the U.S. and international intelligence community warned of increased terrorist activity in Libya.

Ultimately, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in a fiery terrorist attack on the 9/11 anniversary.

To make matters worse, the Obama administration repeatedly blamed an anti-Muslim YouTube video for the attack for nearly two weeks, citing a make-believe demonstration outside the U.S. compound in Libya. Of course, it was later revealed that radical Islamic terrorists were behind the attack and the video had nothing to do with it.

However, as it turns out, some of Obama’s supporters don’t even know the Benghazi attack occurred in the first place — and as they say, what you don’t know can’t hurt you.

Revealing Politics went to an Obama event at Ohio University on Oct. 17 and asked a number of the president’s supporters about the Benghazi attack. The conservative site says “most of the event attendees” had never heard of the terrorist act.

“So, what do you guys think about the situation in Benghazi?” an interviewer with Revealing Politics asks two girls.

“I have no idea,” one of them replies, giggling her head off.

One man said he thinks “the Republicans” were responsible for the attack while an alarming number of others could not identify Ambassador Stevens or recall a terrorist attack occurring in Benghazi.

Read more:

Candy Crowley Self-Destructs
by Brent Bozell
October 19, 2012

Just how badly did CNN's Candy Crowley destroy her first (and hopefully last) attempt as a presidential debate moderator? More than 65 million people saw that she is to debate moderation as CNN is to "news."

Barack Obama made a fatal mistake when he lied, claiming he'd labeled the Libya attack as an act of terrorism. The look on Romney's face said it all: Mr. President, here comes checkmate.

Then Crowley leapt to Obama's defense, declared a lie a truth, changed the subject, and Obama was free.

It was a travesty.

Let's get beyond the perennial partisan toe-taggers Rachel Maddow (touting Romney's "political disaster") and Ed Schultz ("The president destroyed Mitt Romney on foreign policy"), who credited Obama. Look at those who gave the bouquet to Crowley for saving Obama.

That night on PBS, John Heilemann of New York Magazine insisted the subject of Libya would have been disastrous for Obama. "The worst hand that the administration and President Obama have to play in this debate was on Benghazi, and because particularly of Candy Crowley's follow-up on that question, it allowed Barack Obama to win an exchange that I didn't necessarily think it was possible for him to win."

Obama shouldn't have won, but Crowley saved him.

The next morning, Current TV host Eliot Spitzer told Current TV host Bill Press that Crowley caused the "emotional highlight of the night" by declaring Romney was wrong. "I think that really deflated what otherwise should have been on the Benghazi issue a moment when Romney could have hit it out of the park. But instead he took the step too far. Crowley came in as sort of the voice of neutrality and took the victory away from Romney."

Crowley crushed Romney. Even Spitzer wouldn't defend Crowley as staying within a moderator's role.

Crowley knew exactly what she'd done: validate a lie. Time for damage control. Within minutes of leaving the journalistic crime scene, Crowley was back on CNN admitting that Romney was right "in the main" -- whatever that means -- but he chose "the wrong word" by focusing on Obama's cursory use of the term "these acts of terror." If Romney was correct, why not just say it?

Again, Crowley rallied behind Obama -- even repeating her verdict when the president egged her on to "say it a little louder."

Read more:

Obama: Benghazi Murders 'Not Optimal'

by Ben Shapiro
October 18, 2012

Today, according to the White House pool report, President Obama told Jon Stewart during a Comedy Central Daily Show taping that the deaths of our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were “not optimal.” This comes just weeks after President Obama told CBS News’ Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes that the murders of four Americans in Benghazi were “bumps in the road.” By way of contrast, President Obama described the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims,” which had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks, as “crude and disgusting,” an “insult,” and said that its message “must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”

To reiterate: deaths of Americans are “not optimal,” and “bumps in the road.” A YouTube video is “bigotry,” “blasphemy,” “crude and disgusting,” an “insult,” and inhuman.

The left is already saying that the “not optimal” quote has been taken out of context; they were saying that Stewart used the word “optimal” first. The problem: it’s far worse in context. Stewart said that the White House response was “not the optimal response.” Obama responded not by tackling the White House response, but by calling the murders “not optimal.”

Here’s the transcript from the White House pool report:

Jon Stewart: “Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page."

POTUS: "Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it. Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency."

"Not optimal." Now that's disgusting.

Read more:

No comments:

Post a Comment