Tag Archives: CNN

Second Presidential Debate — Some Factoids and Discussion

19 Oct

I’m not going to “analyze” the debate, who won, who didn’t, what the instant polls said, what later polls said, what this or that focus or impression group thought, how much of a “bump” who will get, and blah, blah. Plenty of other people have done that and are continuing to do it. I’m just going to share with you some factoids and related discussion about the debate.

According to CNN’s own timekeeping (and remember the debate moderator Candy Crowley is from CNN), Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50. That’s a difference of three minutes, fifty-four seconds, or almost four minutes. Considering the debate format severely restricted each candidate to only two minutes of unfettered speaking time per question asked, that’s an advantage of about two, entire speaking periods which the moderator allowed Obama.

The “unbiased” Candy Crowley is CNN’s chief political correspondent and anchor who said Romney must have had a “death wish” when he picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. ‘Nuff said.

Candy Crowley, “the moderator,” interrupted Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times, a ratio of more than 3-to-1. No further discussion necessary.

The “moderator” did an on air, instant, “fact-check” supporting Obama calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror in his 9/12 Rose Garden remarks, when in fact he did not. Both Romney and Obama may have law degrees (and Romney has an MBA as well) but so do I, as well as a minor in English, and I can parse words with the best of them.

Obama’s comments about ACTS of terror (like 9/11), not AN ACT of terror, and his comments about the Benghazi attack are separated by EIGHT PARAGRAPHS in his Rose Garden remarks and are not connected. Crowley was even corrected by her own CNN fact-checkers right after the debate. Since then, she has tried to walk back her comments but is still receiving harsh (and justified) criticism from both sides of the political spectrum for injecting herself into the debate, and for being wrong on the facts when she did.

Many contend Romney missed an opportunity by not immediately drawing the contrast between Obama’s Rose Garden comments (even if we admit just for the sake of argument that he did call Benghazi an act of terror) and subsequent, repeated comments over a TWO WEEK period thereafter by his UN ambassador, his press secretary, his secretary of state, his various other spokespersons and surrogates, as well as himself in his UN comments, that it was all about the video and a larger demonstration which had “spun out of control.”

No one on Team Obama called Benghazi what it was, a terrorist attack, in all that time. Yet, we now know (because of Congressional hearings, not anything admitted by Team Obama) that State Department officials watched the attack in real time via uplinked, satellite video and knew there was no larger demonstration which “spun out of control.” That’s not 24 hours later or 48 hours later. That’s at the time it was happening.

Of course, those who blame Romney for that missed opportunity may not have noticed that right after Crowley’s erroneous “correction,” then Obama asking her to repeat it, and the smattering of supposedly disallowed applause for them both, Obama, seeing that Romney was going to persist in commenting on it, quickly asked Crowley to move things along, so as to get more questions in (yeah, uh-huh), and Crowley then cut Romney off about Benghazi.

Oh, and here’s another little known factoid: when Crowley “corrected” Romney and Obama asked her to “Say that a little louder, Candy,” despite the previously announced debate rules that both the on- and off-stage audiences would remain quiet throughout the debate, there was a smattering of applause for Crowley’s so-called “correction” and Obama’s encouraging comment. But, do you know who started that applause? Why, none other than Michelle Obama, sitting off-camera in the larger audience, that’s who. Guess she just couldn’t contain herself over Crowley’s “help.”

However, Romney had already made sure to say during the debate, on national TV, that he was glad to get Obama “on the record” with his claim that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror on 9/12, and not only that, but also now has a “bonus” of Obama on video demonstrating some of his fake indignation that any suggestion that he or any of his people would misrepresent things to the American people was offensive and then peevishly added, “That’s not what we do.”

Also there’s also the bonus debate video of Obama claiming that he evidently did answer that 3AM phone call, much touted by Hillary’s campaign when she was running against him, and immediately called his national security team and directed them to do three things: beef up security all across the region (kind of like after the horses already left the barn), find out who committed the attack (maybe State should have shown him their real-time video), and bring them to justice (the alleged mastermind of the attack has now supposedly been identified but they can’t find him anywhere). Of course, I guess there’s no way to prove if Obama actually answered that 3AM phone call or not, or what, if anything, he directed his national security team to do, or not do, so he’s probably safe with that claim. But then, he also evidently went back to sleep until the next day.

It’s now thirty-eight days since the attack and, although Obama has had time to campaign, fundraise and appear on Univision, ABC’s The View, CBS’ David Letterman’s Late Show, some obscure radio show where he weighed in on some feud between Mariah Carey and Nicky Minaj, and most recently on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, and he’s been repeatedly asked about Benghazi even in those “soft” venues, he has yet to find the time to sit behind his desk in the Oval Office and, as president and commander-in-chief (both of which he so often likes to remind us that he is), look directly into the TV camera and explain to the American people what happened and why, when he knew what, what he’s done about it and what we should be doing about it going FORWARD, to quote his own campaign slogan.

If Romney doesn’t come loaded for bear on Benghazi-gate in the next, last debate, which is totally focused on foreign policy and hopefully has a more moderate moderator, shame on him. Then, he really will have missed an opportunity. But he doesn’t have to actually call the president a liar about Benghazi-gate on national TV. All he has to do is show that he is. Then, merely insinuate that if Team Obama have lied to us about this, what else have they lied to us about?

Obama’s “reset relations” policy with Russia not working, his open mic comment that the Russians give him more time until after the election, his “America apology and appeasement” tour with Muslims not working, his so-called “soft power” and sanctions with Iran not working, his distancing of himself from Israel, what arms we are finally sending into Syria going to al-Qaeda groups (Middle East Fast and Furious anyone?), instead of the real rebel, Syrian freedom fighters, and the resurgence of al-Qaeda all across Northern Africa and into Indonesia, as well as his foreign policy unraveling all across the Muslim world, with our embassies being demonstrated against, our flag being desecrated and him being burned in effigy — all these things, and more, show Obama’s foreign policy is a failure……and why, in this election season full of so many inconvenient truths for this president, he has to lie about it in order to try and salvage it. But a pretty bow and fancy wrapping paper on a package of monkey dung do not change what it is, or make it smell any better, either.

Romney should methodically and persistently tick off such a foreign policy failure list in the next debate, just as he has on Obama’s failed domestic policies in the past debates. If Romney does that and no more, he wins — Obama’s own failed record will sink him for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

However, that latter category evidently does not include college students at a recent Obama event who had not even heard of Benghazi and probably couldn’t find even Libya, much less Benghazi, on a map if their lives depended on it, or recent on-the-street interviewees who were interviewed the day of but before the night of the second debate, yet still said Obama had won. Unfortunately, some of the voting public are beyond hope — and maybe even change. That’s the reason all the rest of us must vote on November 6. We not only can’t let Obama win. We also can’t let the ignorant and the uninformed win.

Advertisements

I Wondered Where the Clapper Was

2 Oct

James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), that is his very top intel guy, was, I thought, mysteriously missing from making any public pronouncements for more than two weeks after the Benghazi attack and the murder of our ambassador and three other brave Americans. And now, I think I know why.

Normally, in situations like this, it would not be our UN ambassador, or not even so much the Secretary of State, but someone like the CIA Director, the Director of Counter Terrorism, the NSA Director, or the DNI himself who would address the intel issues and explain to the public about what happened in Benghazi and why.

Well, of course, along with the president addressing the nation from the Oval Office to let us know what happened and why and what we’re going to do about it. You know, actually showing that he is the commander-in-chief and reassuring us that he is on top of things for us. But then, there have been so many fundraisers and campaign speeches, so what’s one man to do? Busy, busy, busy.

Team Obama, obviously playing election year political tactics rather than being good at national security strategy, probably first asked Hillary to go on the Sunday TV news shows and she declined, so they turned instead to Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice and put her out there to lie to the American people — it’s all about the offensive video, it was all part of a larger demonstration which spun out of control, it was spontaneous and not pre-planned or premeditated, and blah, blah, blah.

Of course, it’s since been revealed (a) that the offensive video only had about 300 viewing hits as of the 9/11 attack, that is, before Team Obama started advertising it by saying it was the cause of all the trouble and paying $70,000 of our tax dollars to distance itself from the video in Pakistan, while Pakistanis nonetheless burned Obama in effigy, (b) that the organizer of the Cairo demonstration against our embassy said he had not even seen the video, (c) that there was no larger demonstration in Benghazi at all, (d) that the attacks on our Benghazi consulate and safe house were done by about 20-100 radical Muslims, in a two-wave attack, over a four hour period, with heavy weapons. I heard all that within two days of the attack and, as a retired Army guy, I knew it was a terrorist attack right then.

It seems Team Obama was counting on generating enough “fog” to distract us from the first successful attack on the US on its own soil (as all our embassies and consulates are) in eleven years and the first murder of one of our ambassadors in thirty-three years having happened on Obama’s watch, and right in the middle of an election year, and on the 9/11 anniversary, too, oh my. How unlucky for Obama, but how deadly for our ambassador and the three killed with him. But then, they’re just “bumps in the road,” after all.

Then, as the days and now the weeks have worn on and Team Obama began to be challenged on its false “narrative,” Obama’s and Hillary’s State Department’s game then became, “We can’t comment on this any more because of the ongoing FBI investigation in Benghazi, so you have to ask the FBI.” Well, the fact is that, after 20 days now, the FBI still hasn’t even begun its investigation on the ground in Banghazi. Why? Well, because of security concerns for its personnel, that’s why.

Hmmm, security concerns didn’t stop someone from CNN going to the consulate site and retrieving Ambassador Stevens’ personal journal from among the rubble four days after the attack, though, did they? Maybe real journalists are just braver than the FBI. Or maybe the whole “FBI investigation thing” is just another stall tactic by Team Obama. And why the FBI anyway? It’s not only a crime scene. It’s the scene of a terrorist attack. So, why isn’t DOD or CIA taking the lead on investigating what happened and why?

Again, it’s Team Obama treating a terrorist attack as if it were merely a law enforcement matter, like the Fort Hood shooting massacre in November 2009 or the foiled underwear bomber over Detroit in December 2009. Yes, those terrorist attacks also took place on Obama’s watch but were treated as law enforcement matters, which the liberal lapdog media compliantly went along with, so no big deal, right?

This all seems too much like the Fast and Furious stalling of Eric “withholding” Holder that his own IG’s investigation must proceed before we would know all we needed to know about F&F and the death of Border Agent Brian Terry and a number of Mexicans, while Holder used stonewalling and finally Obama’s tenuously tendered and probably illegally proffered executive privilege to keep thousands of pages of applicable documents from the Congressional investigating committee.

And now, after months and months, Holder’s IG’s report is out and it’s all ATF and some DOJ officials’ fault but not any of Holder’s himself, and those guilty may be fired, allowed to “retire” or reassigned, but none of them seem to be going to prison, which is where Holder belongs for committing perjury and being incompetent, along with the others who, either through malfeasance or misfeasance of office, allowed the F&F deaths to occur. And still no definitive answers for Brian Terry’s family since he was killed in December 2010, eleven miles inside the United States. What a shame.

Of course, it’s since been revealed (a) that Team Obama knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 24 hours, (b) that they internally labeled it as such to release certain national security assets, and (c) that they may have even had a 48-hour advance warning of the impending 9/11 attack in Benghazi in particular and of a need to increase our embassy and consulate security there and all across the region in general even much prior to 48 hours before.

It has still not come out whether our assassinated ambassador, Chris Stevens, sent the security concerns he had about Benghazi and his own personal security, expressed in his CNN-recovered journal, up State Department channels or not, but it would stretch credulity to think that he did not. And, if he did, who received it, when did they receive it and what did they do about it? It’s pretty obvious at this point to say they didn’t do enough, but those other questions still need answering.

It seems that Team Obama may have purposefully held DNI Clapper back in case their narrative didn’t fly, so they could use him and he could come out later, just as he’s finally done now, to tie up any “loose ends” and clean up the mess which the Obama Amateur Hour Administration has made of the whole Benghazi brouhaha. Clapper now “explains” to all of us (gullible) members of the public that the intel has changed, that Rice reported what was surmised at the time (remember, her appearance was September 16 — five days after the Benghazi attack) and that more recent intel shows that it was clearly a terrorist attack. Yet, they still cling to the falsehood that the “disgusting” video caused it all. Ha and ha!

Remember this is the same DNI Clapper who, in a December 2010 interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, was completely unaware that 12 would-be terrorists had been arrested in the UK earlier that same day. That “intel” was broken to him by Ms. Sawyer when she asked him about it and got the classic “deer in the headlights” look in response.

The same DNI Clapper who, when mass demonstrations were bringing down Egypt’s Mubarak in February 2011, told a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the term “Muslim Brotherhood” was an umbrella term for a variety of movements, a very heterogenous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence, decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam, which has pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt and which has no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence.

Then, the Muslim Brotherhood ran a candidate in their first “free elections” and elected one of their own, Mohamed Morsi, as prime minister. The same Mohamed Morsi who recently failed to use his security forces to protect our embassy in Cairo and who, only after a phone call from Obama, even spoke out against the demonstrations at all. The same Mohamed Morsi who afterward thought he could dictate the terms of how much of our taxpayer money Obama sends him to fund the Egyptian military which keeps Morsi in power. With “friends” like Morsi, we don’t need enemies.

And also remember, this is the same DNI Clapper who, in March 2011, was wrong, wrong, wrong in commenting at the Senate Committee on Armed Services that “over the longer term” Gaddafi “will prevail” in the 2011 Libyan civil war. The Obama White House subsequently and resoundingly “qualified” his statement as a “static and one-dimensional assessment.” He was also questioned, rightly so, by committee members at the same hearing about why he had failed to list either Iran or North Korea among those countries who posed a nuclear threat to the United States. Duh!

Yeah, that DNI Clapper. He’s exactly THE guy to “explain” to me all the confusing and contradictory claims about Benghazi coming out of Team Obama over the last 20 days, as we also witness Obama’s feckless foreign policy of apology and appeasement in collapse all across the Muslim world. How about you? Who among Team Obama do you trust to just tell you the plain truth for a change?

2012 Presidential Debates — Games, Games and More Games

14 Aug

I’ve learned from Breitbart News that two days after CNN’s Candy Crowley dubbed the Romney-Ryan ticket “The Death Wish Ticket,” she was chosen as one of this year’s presidential debate moderators. Here’s the lineup:

First presidential debate:
Jim Lehrer, Executive Editor of the PBS NewsHour
Wednesday, October 3, University of Denver, Denver, CO

Vice presidential debate:
Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ABC News
Thursday, October 11, Centre College, Danville, KY

Second presidential debate (town meeting):
Candy Crowley, Chief Political Correspondent, CNN and Anchor, CNN’s State of the Union
Tuesday, October 16, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

Third presidential debate:
Bob Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News and Moderator, Face the Nation
Monday, October 22, Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL

Notice anything in particular? PBS, of public funding and liberal bias fame; ABC, of selective editing fame; CNN, of barely in the cable ratings fame; and CBS, formerly of Dan Rather infamy and now equally questionable Bob Schieffer fame. One or two may be an exception, but these selections seem to indicate a trend — they have all shown themselves to be rather liberal “news” outlets.

Thank goodness, at least no one from NBC, the worst of the bunch (except for MSLSD, of course), was chosen. Of course, the Obama ever faithful and sycophantic NBC “News” will still be hammering away every night with bad things about Romney-Ryan, while continuing to give Obama a pass, as they have ever since his campaign started in 2008.

I don’t know if Candy Crowley is supposed to be some kind of news heavyweight at CNN, but I can tell from her picture that she is some kind of heavyweight. I don’t watch CNN that much, so I don’t know if Crowley is supposed to be a hard news reporter or a commentator, but her comment about the Romney-Ryan ticket was certainly commentary, or opinion, not just reporting the news.

It was similar to MSLSD’s Andrea Mitchell recently mildly mocking Paul Ryan for saying our rights come from Nature and God and not government and then taking the totally unconnected and illogical leap directly to saying Ryan was not a good pick for women. Huh, Andrea?

First, Ryan’s comment about where our rights come from was not original. It’s in the beginning of our Declaration of Independence, for goodness sakes! Second, what does that have to do with Ryan being, or not being, a good pick for women? In fact, Ryan is currently polling especially well among seniors, women and blue collar workers, so we’ll just see how that goes.

Mitchell used to be a reporter, and a good one, but is now a commentator, too, whether she admits it or not. I think advancing years and the MSLSD culture have affected her brain. Of course, hanging around with Chrissy Matthey, Eddie Schlitz and Radical Madcow could turn anyone’s brain to mush.

The so-called Commission on Presidential Debates made a joke of itself and its alleged nonpartisanship with this year’s moderator choices. I would have included ABC’s Jake Tapper and Fox’s Bret Baier or the well-seasoned Brit Hume for some balance this year. At least ABC’s Martha Raddatz is a better choice than PBS’s Gwen Ifill was to “moderate” the 2008 VP debate between Palin and Biden, when Ifill had a book slavishly praising Obama coming out within weeks of the debate.

If Romney and Ryan sense the liberal media bias in the liberal moderators’ questions this year, they should cause some Newt Gingrinch moments and challenge the biased moderator head-on, or, a la Sarah Palin with Ifill, just answer the question the way you want to answer it and talk straight to the American people.

If R&R realize they’re entering a hostile, liberal environment, take their time answering, and challenge biased questions with good humor and facts, they will demonstrate the liberal media bias for all to see and make their case to the public at the same time.

%d bloggers like this: