President Obama Lied To The Nation About Libya Tonight

During the debate tonight President Obama took issue with Mitt Romney’s assertion that the administration misled the public on what happened in Benghazi and why it happened.

You can watch the whole exchange here:

In a nutshell he’s claiming that he called it a terrorist attack right away. Romney was dumbfounded at the claim, as he knew that it wasn’t true. He tried to pin the President down, and Obama said to see his Rose Garden remarks.

Here’s what he actually said on September 12th:

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Rose Garden

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

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. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. 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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

The sole reference to terrorism is a generic, “no act of terror will ever shake our resolve” reference. The text of the address calls the assassinations an “attack,” never using terms like assassination, terrorism, murder, etc.

So when Candy Crowley bailed Obama out by saying the President did call the assassination a terrorist act she was dead wrong and should acknowledge that she got her facts wrong.

Even more galling is that the American people know that the Obama administration and Obama himself would not characterising the assassination as a terrorist attack two weeks later in his speech at the U.N. or on ABC’s “The View.” The Washington Post has a timeline of the administrations statements that refutes Obama’s claim here.

The President lied to the American people tonight. Next week’s debate is a foreign policy debate and by then it will be common knowledge that the President lied about this tonight. Let’s hope the next moderator doesn’t feel compelled to take over for the President and answer questions for him…

It’s also another chance for Romney to make an issue of this. He can and will do a better job of highlighting the administrations failure. If he needs some advice he should see Senator’s McCain, Graham and Ayotte’s statement last night.

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 16, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, War On Terror.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • hbk72777

    Skip to 11:40 of the video. Obama is proven a liar. This is 2 weeks AFTER the Rose Garden

  • ROBERT BROWN

    Why was the added security not put in place before 4 Americans were murdered in the Libyan attack? Mr.President i would like an answer to that question. It was 9/11 and the U.S. Killed the BIN LADEN. Why were Americans killed 1st? Then the U.S. takes action? The President did not explain why the beefed up security was not in place before the Libyan attack. Also why is SEC of State Clinton taking the blame? The White House is out of control! Who put Susan Rice in charge of explaining to the American people what really happened in Libya? Now it was faulty intelligence? What does Mr.Panetta have to say about Rice’s comments? The President those were his people that were in Libya! With all due respect Mr.President, Is this how you take care of “Your People”? Really.

    • SteveCrickmore075

      Let’s have some perspective what it is like to face militant jaadists, when one is president and responsible for protecting US ciitizens. Reagan loses 241 servicemen in Lebanon, disregarding personally his defense secretary’s urgent pleas, to move the Beirut barracks. Thousands are lost in 9/11, while Bush personally, waived off National Security memos about “an impending attack”, and Obama does not even know about the consulate’s petition in Benghazi (it was more for beeefing up the embassy security in any event, in Tripoli). Naturally, from the right who gets a huge firestorm of blame for not taking care of their people, when there were four casualties, while….

      • jim_m

        Steve, exactly what precedent did Reagan have for the Marine barracks bombing?

        –crickets–

        Thought so.

        Meanwhile obama has the precedent of several of our embassies being attacked by al qaeda. It is one thing to say that you have intel saying that something that has never been done before will happen and another saying that something that has happened several times is about to happen again. You can blame Reagan for Benghazi all you like. There is no comparison between the two circumstances.

        • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

          What precedent did Reagan have for the Marine Barracks bombing?

          The U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed April 18, 1983, six months before the Marine Barracks bombing. 63 people at the embassy were killed. Same SVBIED Hezbollah TTP.

          Hello? I know I might be a little hipper to the history because I was deployed in the Med that summer, but you take “low information voter” to a new low, jim.

          • jim_m

            Not really. Still to compare the failure in Beirut to Benghazi is a poor analogy. We are looking back at decades of terrorism directly targeted at the US. We were not back then. And while we should have done something based on the intel we were getting, to excuse the failure at Benghazi based on Beirut is pretty stupid.

            I suppose in that case I should expect it from you and Steve.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            You did not even remember the Beirut embassy bombing, even though it was several orders of magnitude greater than Benghazi.

          • jim_m

            I’m remembering that we had over 30 years of terrorism that said that the threats should be heeded. We didn’t have that in the early 1980′s. I can see you’re having difficulty wrapping your head around that fact.

          • Jwb10001

            All this Beirut, Regan BS is non sense trying to cover for Obama, it’s like saying FDR was president when Japan attack pearl harbor (bad democrat stated all this) it has nothing to do with current events other than to TRY to cover O. Stupid on it’s face.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            It just shows how much you really care about the lives of diplomats.

          • jim_m

            So you are saying that Reagan was just as culpable as obama even though obama had 30+ years of evidence that this might be something more serious?

            You’re incredibly dishonest. This has nothing to do with how much anyone cares about the lives of diplomats. It has everything to do with your dishonesty.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Steve’s original point was about the Marine Barracks bombing, which was six months after the Beirut embassy bombing.

            You said there was “no precedent” to the Marine Barracks bombing.  

            Six months later. No measures taken to defend against a known TTP. The Marine barracks only had a flimsy gate guarding it, so the truck bomb was able to easily crash through and destroy the barracks.

            Since there hadn’t been any attacks on US facilities in Libya in the last year, I would say Reagan was more responsible. Not to mention he was selling weapons to the Iranian sponsors of Hezbollah within three years after both bombings.

            I don’t even need to get into other issues, like the New Jersey shelling the hills above Beirut before the barracks bombing. That is way over your head.

          • Jwb10001

            So Obama gets a pass cause his Dept of State only allowed 4 people to get killed? OK then. I suppose you have some documentation showing there were several requests for additional security right before the attack in Beirut, or that there had been several other similar attacks right before this one, or that that attack happened on the anniverary of the most devistating terrorist attack in history? If you can’t then you’ve made a fool of yourself… again. By the way anyone that was properly raised has heard 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

          • jim_m

            You want to talk about a low information voter? Why don’t you start advertising Gary Johnson’s stands on the issues? That’s right. Because you aren’t really supporting him so you don’t know what he stands for. If you did know you would sometimes mention what he stood for. You never do, which is evidence that you know nothing of the candidate that you claim to support.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            OK, here are Johnson’s FP stands:

            http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy

            AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AFGHANISTAN SHOULD END, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.
            With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan’s challenges to the Afghan people.Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.The U.S. must make better use of strategic alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.
            AMERICA CAN ACHIEVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY GOALS without sacrificing American values.
            No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

          • jim_m

            I’m glad that I moved you to google his stands. Now you know something about the guy you claim to support. It would be a little more convincing if you did this spontaneously and not after being goaded.

          • Rdmurphy42

            So Chico, time for more of his positions; how about this one;

            Johnson supports ending the federal personal and corporate income tax system and replacing it with the FairTax reform proposal (while systematically reducing these taxes to near-zero levels), a national consumption tax on new goods and services. He believes the FairTax would “reboot” the American economy without impacting those at or under the poverty level, who would not be subject to it.

            Or this one;

            Johnson favors building new coal-fired and nuclear power plants. He supports private sector research and development of renewable energy, but does not believe doing so is the government’s job.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            OK, I’m good with that – Fair Tax, nuke plants

          • Rdmurphy42

            Johnson believes that the “costs of health care are out of control and something needs to be done to return health care to fiscal solvency.” He does “not believe that government should be taking over the health care system.” Instead, he believes that a “market-based approach should be the foundation of any solution. A health care insurance system that is privately owned and managed is the best approach to solving our health care problems.” He favors tort reform and control of frivolous lawsuits as means of cutting costs of health care.[18]
            Johnson opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which he has referred to as “Obamacare,” and believes it should be repealed.[7] He also opposed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which he calls “the failed Medicare prescription drug plan,” and believes it should be repealed.[10] Johnson does not believe health care is a right.[7]

            That one?

          • retired.military

            Chico is voting for Obama and is just too ashamed to admit it.

      • Jwb10001

        News flash ace Reagan ain’t president and nothing he did excuses Obama’s actions on this PERIOD. I just love Bush is responsible for 9/11 after several months being president but Obama after 4 years isn’t responsible for anything, Nice try.
        You think saying Obama didn’t know about the consulate’s petition is a defense? If so then why is Hillary Clinton still Sec of State if she and her team botched this so badly how can she survive, shows a complete lack of leadership from Obama. You take responsiblity you pay the price.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Let’s get the transcript of the debate, and compare it to what Obama had said in the Rose Garden.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
    The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who who committed this crime…
    MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.
    MR. ROMNEY:Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
    MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.


    MR. ROMNEY: I — I — 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.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript. (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.)
    MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.
    So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —
    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
    MS. CROWLEY: 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 of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that….

    And this is what you think is Romney’s best moment, in which to underline your post, in a 90 minute debate. Romney must have really been blown out of the water!

    • 914

      Shorter: Why is Hillary apologizing for a video/terrorist attack?

      lol

    • Rdmurphy42

      So Crowley interjecting with a point that she later ADMITS SHE WAS WRONG ON AND ROMNEY WAS RIGHT, you see as a weak moment for Romney? The moment when the moderator decided to pick up pom poms and a miniskirt and actively cheer for him, using a fake factcheck?

    • Jwb10001

      Ok Steve so will you be calling for Susan Rice to resign or be fired for lying to the American public on at least 4 separate occasions?

    • Jwb10001

      Geez Steve if Obama was so clear about this being a terroist attack why did his direct report go on 4 different Sunday talk shows and claim it all that nasty video.

      • retired.military

        Also if Obama is the one where the buck stops at (which he clearly said in the debate) why do we have Hillary saying the buck stops with her?

  • TomInCali

    The sole reference to terrorism is a generic, “no act of terror will
    ever shake our resolve” reference.

    As is typical of the Obama quotes the right likes to pull out, you omit the very next sentence: “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.” Thus qualifying the previous sentence as one that applies to the events of “today”.

    • Hank_M

      That’s a reach if I ever saw one.

      Early in the Rose Garden speech Obama also refers to the video by saying :
      “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

      And really. If Obama was saying it was a terrorist attack that day, why did he subsequently go to the UN and blame the video?
      Hell, why did he fly off to Vegas that day to fund raise if it was a terrorist attack? Is that leadership?

      • herddog505

        Oh, no: it’s not a reach at all. See, Barry used the word “terrorism” at some point when talking about Libya, so that TOTALLY proves that he bravely told us it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, and all the hoopla about YouTube videos, spontaneous demonstrations, fog of war, Hillary being responsible, “security experts” in the State Dept. being responsible, on-going investigations, etc. is just a lot of reichwing smear machine talking points, which are, like, TOTALLY unfair. After all, President McKinley didn’t have to endure these sorts of partisan attacks when the Maine blew up, and President Jefferson didn’t have to put up with baseless criticism when the Philadelphia went aground in Tripoli.

      • UOG

        Of course he didn’t and wouldn’t declare the attack in Benghazi to be an “act of terrorism” because such a declaration brings with it mandated actions on our part that would make it hard for him to pretend the war on terrorism is over… even if he claimed it was just another of his little overseas contingency operations.

      • 914

        Yep! leading from behind. Barry’s speciality!!

    • Vagabond661

      The “no acts of terror will ever shake our resolve” comment was directed to the attack on the Twin Towers. Why would the attack on an embassy shake our resolve? Doesn’t make sense to associate it with that.

    • Jwb10001

      Oh I don’t see you pulling out the quotes from the same speech talking about the video, kettle meet pot………….

    • retired.military

      Yeah. And the Ft Hood massacre was due to workplace violence.

      What is going to really matter is what people remember. Obama saying that he called it an act of terror in the Rose Garden the day after the attack and him and his lackeys blaming the tape for the next 2 weeks. That is what Joe sixpack is going to remember and even Joe Sixpack is smart enough to know that those 2 stories dont jive. Can I say Jive when talking about Obama or is it considered racist like umm you know…. Chicago.

  • Pingback: Second Obama Romney Presidential Debate: Obama’s Comeback? (News and Blog Roundup) UPDATED | The Moderate Voice

  • sabbahillel

    I was really mad about Obama’s lie about the Arizona immigration law and thought that Romney should have nailed him for it.

  • herddog505

    Crowley has since had to walk back her… um… timely “fact check” of Mitt’s statement.

    CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

    And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t.

    So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.

    I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.http://papundits.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/video-candy-crowley-admits-romney-was-correct-about-libya-attack-but-simply-couldnt-stop-herself/

    [emphasis mine - hd505]

    No, Candy: that DOESN’T make any sense.

    Color me biased and cynical, but I suggest that Crowley either (A) just couldn’t resist riding to Barry’s rescue, like a fangirl who DOES SO know that Edward is cooler than Jacob, or (B) she deliberately lied to cover Barry before a large audience, knowing she could walk it back after everybody went to bed.

    • jim_m

      She knew she was lying at the time. The purpose was to stop obama from losing. Instead what she did was hand the debate to Romney by default because now the entire post debate discussion will be on this topic alone.

      • herddog505

        I’m not so sure.
        Certainly Romney supporters will rant about her shabby role in the debate – did she call on plants? Did she deliberately stack the deck with questions against Romney? Did she interrupt Romney more than she did Barry? Did she throw Barry a lifeline on Libya? – but I suggest that MiniTru will be working hard to make the story about Barry, The Comeback Kid. Any complaints about Crowley, to the extent that they are discussed at all, will be waived aside as Republican sour grapes.

        One thing has occured to me, though: we’re really getting a good look at Romney under pressure, and he seems to do well. He comes across as having agood command of facts, a calm demeanor, tough without being a jerk. In contrast, lefties are ecstatic simply because Barry managed to NOT humiliate himself again. I think that people will pick up on this, to Romney’s advantage. The last thing Barry needs is for people to keep talking about his miserable first debate performance.

        • jim_m

          The questioners were by definition all plants. ALL questions were preselected by CNN and Crowley. This would be excusable if any pretense were made at being objective, but Crowley declared that she would not in advance of the debate.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      No, there’s no bias. /sarc

      BTW, remember how violence-prone the TEA party folks were painted?

      - “If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.
      - “Yall ready to assasinate romney?”
      - “Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo Romney.”
      - “Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass.”
      - “I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assasinate romney my damn self if he get elected!”
      - “If romney get elected i hope a nigga assasinate his bitchass.
      - “No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american
      population is going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder
      and you’ll be #1.”
      - “At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!”
      - “If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch ass ASAP.”
      - “If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should
      assassinate him before he ruins the lives of our generation & our
      children.”
      - “IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED AND TAKES AWAY MY FOOD STAMPS IMA SEND SOMEONE TO MURDER HIS ASS.”

      http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

      Yeah, the left is all tolerant and peace-loving, as long as you give ‘em what they want and never ever suggest they might be wrong about something, or express disagreement with their beliefs, or tell them that their favored programs will have to be cut back… at which point they turn into intolerant, hate-filled creatures willing (apparently) to kill.

      But it’s the right that’s violent and hateful. Remember that.

  • 914

    It’s only words.. And words are all Barry has, to take the truth away!

    Sorry Bee Gee’s

  • Pingback: An Open Letter To Candy Crowley and the Rest of the Media | Wizbang

  • Carl

    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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    It’s a paragraph.

    It’s a paragraph that describes and act of terror as it describes the attack on 9/11/12. The entire paragraph is describing the attack and uses the term “act of terror” to describe it.

    Mitt was caught lying again.

    It’s so simple even a tea party idiot can see it – unless they really have their head up their ass.

    • jim_m

      Nope. Candy Crawley admitted her error after the debate. She was wrong (though she did not apologize) and up to two weeks later obama was still claiming that it was not an act of terror on the view as has already been linked on this thread.

      It is so simple that any honest person would understand. That exempts you.

    • 914

      Obama lied cause our Ambassador died. You lie because you are pathetic and mentally ill.

    • Rdmurphy42

      So are you saying candy Crowley is a “tea party idiot with her head up her ass”. Now that she is disagreeing with you as said that Romney was, in the main, right?

      • Carl

        That’s a lie.Crowley did not admit her error” that’s just todays GOP lie.

        Just as Mitt’s lie on national television was also a lie. And the words Obama spoke, the transcript, proves Mitt is nothing but a lying fear mongering asshole.

        It’s too bad the Tea Party decided they could beat Obama by g their teeth. It only took one lie to blow the election – this one was it.

        • Rdmurphy42

          So the words coming out of her own mouth were a lie? Now THAAT is some interesting spin. Was it not her but instead a pod person perhaps?

        • Rdmurphy42

          Those cylons they make these days are awfully lifelike.

    • Jwb10001

      Where have you been little troll? The circus has not been the same with out it’s biggest clown.

    • retired.military

      So why did his administration (even Jay Carney over a week later) blame a video and say no they didnt think it was an act of terror?

      Go ahead. We’ll wait.

  • Pingback: Hofstra Presidential Debate – Romney Wins on Pts, Obama More Aggressive, Crowley 3rd Debater | Lady Liberty 1885

  • Brian_R_Allen

    ….. President Obama Tonight Lied To Us About Libya ….

    Still.

    And be prepared tomorrow for the frightful shock of hearing that bears poop in the woods and the Pope’s a Catholic!

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Like most modern era “journalists” — and most particularly those that pontificate to cameras and/or microphones — Candy Jabba-The-Hutt Crowley has spent way too much time being way too damned stupid to notice, in a trade that in any case has long mistaken narcissism for talent. Proof of that may be found in the fact that although she accepted contractual terms to get the gig, immediately she got it she began agitating to place herself above the Americans meant to be represented at the “debate” and effectively to get equal billing with Zero and President-elect Romney.

    Which, had she left it at that, would have been bad enough.

    But ol’ Jabba-The-Hutt, a life-time Goebbels-School “Democratic” potty activist/propagandist/polemicist/pamphleteer posing as a “press” person found herself driven by her inner ideologue into inserting herself into the “debate” and into pairing with Zero to form an effective flash-mob tag team that attempted to run Mr Romney oudda there on a ratbags’ rail!

    Meanwhile would someone like to run it past me again why the effective “Democrat” RINOs that run “republicanism” over there in the Far East (coastal establishment) ever agree to such ridiculous formats and to taking the likes of Mt Crowley on board?