Michael Gaynor
Romney and Hannity spy a huge Obama lie as Obama and "moderator" Crowley gave it a try
By Michael Gaynor
The fact is that Obama is a serial presidential debate liar who lied his way to the White House in 2008.
If Sean Hannity is especially wise, he'll do a special on Obama's presidential debate lies.
In the second presidential debaste Obama again showed himself to be a revisionist historian and revisionist historian is a flattering euphemism for liar.On an evening when the usually astute Charles Krauthammer says Obama as the winner on points, Hannity didn't mince words: he said that Romney had caught Obama in a big lie.
When Hannity told Kirsten Powers (and the world) that CNN's Candy Crowley had just owned up to having been wrong, she was stunned. (During the debate she judged Obama right and Romney wrong and then repeated that more loudly as soon as Obama cued her that doing so was what he wanted her to do.)
This time Obama remembered to energize, but it's now cleat that Obama lies.
In "Fact Check: Presidential Debate Claims By Mitt Romney, Barack Obama Scrutinized" (www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/fact-check-presidential-debate_n_1971552.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D221155), Huffington Post's Calvin Woodward proclaimed that "Romney wrongly claimed that it took 14 days for President Barack Obama to brand the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya a terrorist act" and presented this as proof:
'OBAMA: The day after last month's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "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 committed this crime."
"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.'
"OBAMA: 'Get the transcript.'
"THE FACTS: Obama is correct in saying that he referred to Benghazi as an act of terrorism on Sept. 12, the day after the attack. From the Rose Garden, he said: '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. ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.'
'But others in his administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. It took almost a month before officials acknowledged that those protests never occurred. And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long for that correction to be made or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration."
During the debate, CNN's Candy Crowley said Obama was correct, but he was lying.
That's much worse than Vice President Biden's incessant interrupting and inappropriate laughter or presidential candidate Al Gore's infamous sighing.
Woodward quoted Obama's words correctly, but out of context. He spoke them on September 12, 2012, restating American policy since September 11, 2001, and never identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism.
If he had, why did his United Nations Ambassador, Susan Rice go on five Sunday shows five days later and explain instead that the attack was a spontaneous response to some anti-Islamic video?
If Rice somehow had gone rogue, why didn't Obama promptly publicly correct and replace her?
Greta van Susteren (http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/16/what-did-president-obama-say-the-day-after-the-attack-on-the-benghazi-consulate/):
"This is what the President said on 9-12, the day after the attack on the US Consulate at Benghazi:
'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.'
"As noted by one of my colleagues, the President mentioned 'acts of terror' but didn't directly say Benghazi was one. When he directly addressed the attack he called it an 'outrageous and shocking attack.'
"And then for the next week (or more) the President and the Administration continued to push the protest / video as to why the attack.
"5 days after President Obama spoke on the 12th of September, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was on all the Sunday Morning shows insisting the cause of the trouble was the video and a protest. She did not say terrorism.
"And as late as September 18, on the David Letterman Show, President Obama was promoting the protest / video reason for the attack. He did not say it was terrorism.
"It is noteworthy that the State Department, on the eve of the House hearing on the terrorism at the Consulate, held a conference call for the media. In that call and on the next day at the hearing, the State Department said that in the time leading up to the attack, it was calm outside the Consulate and I think the word 'normal' was used to describe what was going on. There was no suggestion of any protest of any kind nor video."
Blatantly partisan and iconoclastic "moderator" Crowley made Martha Raddatz, moderator of the vice presidential debate this year, and Gwen Ifill, moderator of the 2008 presidential debate, big winners by comparison.
Matthew Sheffield, in "Candy Crowley Disgraces Herself With Outrageous Tagteam Hit on Romney Over Libya " (http://newsbusters.org/people/candy-crowley):
"After embarrassing herself with her incompetently biased attempt to 'fact check' GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate, CNN correspondent Candy Crowley has already began trying to save her shattered credibility. In a panel discussion afterward, a fast-talking Crowley tried to spin away her offensive conduct by admitting that Romney was indeed correct in casting blame on the Obama Administration for falsely blaming an anti-Islamic video for attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
"'It was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you're not expecting,' Crowley insisted, admitting she simply couldn't help herself from unprofessionally inserting herself into a heated dispute that Obama and Romney were having."
CNN's egregious bias in favor of Obama exhibited by Crowley was just the latest example.
Whether it was the worst is debatable.
CNN helped Obama win the presidency in 2008 by not reporting on Obama's ACORN ties and lies, even though it interviewed and taped ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief and could have changed the outcome of the election by reporting her story.
Ironically, CNN finally reported on and quoted MonCrief, in "As Election Day nears, voter ID laws still worry some, encourage others" (www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/voter-laws-update/index.html), as follows:
"Anita MonCrief, however, could not disagree more strongly....
"MonCrief, who is also African American, told women gathered at the Woman's Up Pavilion at the Republican National Convention in August that she resents when other blacks suggest that efforts to crack down on voter fraud are racially motivated.
"'This is not the 60's and blacks are not your victims,' MonCrief tweeted during the week of the convention. 'Do you know any blacks that have been disenfranchised by having poll watchers in place? Neither do I.'"
Team Obama, CNN and The New York Times can live with MonCrief favoring voter identification laws, but not with her blowing the whistle on Obama's ACORN ties and lies.
The fact is that Obama is a serial presidential debate liar who lied his way to the White House in 2008.
As I wrote in "Does NYT Know MORE About Obama/ACORN?"(www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081020):
"It's no surprise that The New York Times is backing the Obamas and battering the McCains.
"It's no surprise that McCain's alliance with The New York Times on campaign finance reform has turned out to be a boon for The New York Times and a burden for McCain.
"And it's no surprise that The New York Times has been handling the Obama/ACORN relationship the way it has.
"Election Day 2008 is nearly upon us.
"The New York Times obviously wants Obama to be elected President.
"But timely voter appreciation of the Obama/ACORN relationship and the fact that Obama brazenly lied about it in the last presidential debate will thwart the will of The New York Times and put an end to Obama's presidential aspirations.
"Obama during the last of the three presidential debates:
'...with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.
'It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.'
"That was NOT Obama's only involvement with ACORN, and he very well knows it.
"ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is Obama's Achilles heel.
"Capital Research Center began its report on a recent Obama campaign tactic to help ACORN ('Obama Demands Probe of Investigators Probing Criminal Group ACORN,' October 18, 2008, by Matthew Vadum) with an old Communist saying, 'Accuse your enemy of what you are doing.'
"It can be an effective tactic, especially when the self-described 'newspaper of record' does not deem the whole truth 'news fit to print.'
"Vadum:
'ACORN has friends in high places.
'Barack Obama's campaign is — strangely enough — demanding that a special prosecutor look into the investigations of the massive vote fraud that is being perpetrated by the radical group ACORN to determine if the investigations are politically motivated.'"
During last night's debate Obama said that Romney's "a good man."
Obama's campaign has been calling Romney a liar for a long time.
Obama's description of Romney as "a good man" makes sense though: Obama doesn't want to be called and exposed as a liar.
Hannity had no problem calling Obama a liar after last night's debate.
He was right.
It is so.
Obama is a serial presidential debate liar and the voters need.
Hannity can put on a terrific show.
But there's no time now for going slow.
It's time to give MonCrief the stage to specifically make the case terrifically instead of to rightly rage generally that Obama's a disgrace.
© Michael Gaynor
October 18, 2012
The fact is that Obama is a serial presidential debate liar who lied his way to the White House in 2008.
If Sean Hannity is especially wise, he'll do a special on Obama's presidential debate lies.
In the second presidential debaste Obama again showed himself to be a revisionist historian and revisionist historian is a flattering euphemism for liar.On an evening when the usually astute Charles Krauthammer says Obama as the winner on points, Hannity didn't mince words: he said that Romney had caught Obama in a big lie.
When Hannity told Kirsten Powers (and the world) that CNN's Candy Crowley had just owned up to having been wrong, she was stunned. (During the debate she judged Obama right and Romney wrong and then repeated that more loudly as soon as Obama cued her that doing so was what he wanted her to do.)
This time Obama remembered to energize, but it's now cleat that Obama lies.
In "Fact Check: Presidential Debate Claims By Mitt Romney, Barack Obama Scrutinized" (www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/fact-check-presidential-debate_n_1971552.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D221155), Huffington Post's Calvin Woodward proclaimed that "Romney wrongly claimed that it took 14 days for President Barack Obama to brand the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya a terrorist act" and presented this as proof:
'OBAMA: The day after last month's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "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 committed this crime."
"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.'
"OBAMA: 'Get the transcript.'
"THE FACTS: Obama is correct in saying that he referred to Benghazi as an act of terrorism on Sept. 12, the day after the attack. From the Rose Garden, he said: '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. ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.'
'But others in his administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. It took almost a month before officials acknowledged that those protests never occurred. And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long for that correction to be made or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration."
During the debate, CNN's Candy Crowley said Obama was correct, but he was lying.
That's much worse than Vice President Biden's incessant interrupting and inappropriate laughter or presidential candidate Al Gore's infamous sighing.
Woodward quoted Obama's words correctly, but out of context. He spoke them on September 12, 2012, restating American policy since September 11, 2001, and never identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism.
If he had, why did his United Nations Ambassador, Susan Rice go on five Sunday shows five days later and explain instead that the attack was a spontaneous response to some anti-Islamic video?
If Rice somehow had gone rogue, why didn't Obama promptly publicly correct and replace her?
Greta van Susteren (http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/16/what-did-president-obama-say-the-day-after-the-attack-on-the-benghazi-consulate/):
"This is what the President said on 9-12, the day after the attack on the US Consulate at Benghazi:
'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.'
"As noted by one of my colleagues, the President mentioned 'acts of terror' but didn't directly say Benghazi was one. When he directly addressed the attack he called it an 'outrageous and shocking attack.'
"And then for the next week (or more) the President and the Administration continued to push the protest / video as to why the attack.
"5 days after President Obama spoke on the 12th of September, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was on all the Sunday Morning shows insisting the cause of the trouble was the video and a protest. She did not say terrorism.
"And as late as September 18, on the David Letterman Show, President Obama was promoting the protest / video reason for the attack. He did not say it was terrorism.
"It is noteworthy that the State Department, on the eve of the House hearing on the terrorism at the Consulate, held a conference call for the media. In that call and on the next day at the hearing, the State Department said that in the time leading up to the attack, it was calm outside the Consulate and I think the word 'normal' was used to describe what was going on. There was no suggestion of any protest of any kind nor video."
Blatantly partisan and iconoclastic "moderator" Crowley made Martha Raddatz, moderator of the vice presidential debate this year, and Gwen Ifill, moderator of the 2008 presidential debate, big winners by comparison.
Matthew Sheffield, in "Candy Crowley Disgraces Herself With Outrageous Tagteam Hit on Romney Over Libya " (http://newsbusters.org/people/candy-crowley):
"After embarrassing herself with her incompetently biased attempt to 'fact check' GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate, CNN correspondent Candy Crowley has already began trying to save her shattered credibility. In a panel discussion afterward, a fast-talking Crowley tried to spin away her offensive conduct by admitting that Romney was indeed correct in casting blame on the Obama Administration for falsely blaming an anti-Islamic video for attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
"'It was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you're not expecting,' Crowley insisted, admitting she simply couldn't help herself from unprofessionally inserting herself into a heated dispute that Obama and Romney were having."
CNN's egregious bias in favor of Obama exhibited by Crowley was just the latest example.
Whether it was the worst is debatable.
CNN helped Obama win the presidency in 2008 by not reporting on Obama's ACORN ties and lies, even though it interviewed and taped ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief and could have changed the outcome of the election by reporting her story.
Ironically, CNN finally reported on and quoted MonCrief, in "As Election Day nears, voter ID laws still worry some, encourage others" (www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/voter-laws-update/index.html), as follows:
"Anita MonCrief, however, could not disagree more strongly....
"MonCrief, who is also African American, told women gathered at the Woman's Up Pavilion at the Republican National Convention in August that she resents when other blacks suggest that efforts to crack down on voter fraud are racially motivated.
"'This is not the 60's and blacks are not your victims,' MonCrief tweeted during the week of the convention. 'Do you know any blacks that have been disenfranchised by having poll watchers in place? Neither do I.'"
Team Obama, CNN and The New York Times can live with MonCrief favoring voter identification laws, but not with her blowing the whistle on Obama's ACORN ties and lies.
The fact is that Obama is a serial presidential debate liar who lied his way to the White House in 2008.
As I wrote in "Does NYT Know MORE About Obama/ACORN?"(www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081020):
"It's no surprise that The New York Times is backing the Obamas and battering the McCains.
"It's no surprise that McCain's alliance with The New York Times on campaign finance reform has turned out to be a boon for The New York Times and a burden for McCain.
"And it's no surprise that The New York Times has been handling the Obama/ACORN relationship the way it has.
"Election Day 2008 is nearly upon us.
"The New York Times obviously wants Obama to be elected President.
"But timely voter appreciation of the Obama/ACORN relationship and the fact that Obama brazenly lied about it in the last presidential debate will thwart the will of The New York Times and put an end to Obama's presidential aspirations.
"Obama during the last of the three presidential debates:
'...with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.
'It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.'
"That was NOT Obama's only involvement with ACORN, and he very well knows it.
"ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is Obama's Achilles heel.
"Capital Research Center began its report on a recent Obama campaign tactic to help ACORN ('Obama Demands Probe of Investigators Probing Criminal Group ACORN,' October 18, 2008, by Matthew Vadum) with an old Communist saying, 'Accuse your enemy of what you are doing.'
"It can be an effective tactic, especially when the self-described 'newspaper of record' does not deem the whole truth 'news fit to print.'
"Vadum:
'ACORN has friends in high places.
'Barack Obama's campaign is — strangely enough — demanding that a special prosecutor look into the investigations of the massive vote fraud that is being perpetrated by the radical group ACORN to determine if the investigations are politically motivated.'"
During last night's debate Obama said that Romney's "a good man."
Obama's campaign has been calling Romney a liar for a long time.
Obama's description of Romney as "a good man" makes sense though: Obama doesn't want to be called and exposed as a liar.
Hannity had no problem calling Obama a liar after last night's debate.
He was right.
It is so.
Obama is a serial presidential debate liar and the voters need.
Hannity can put on a terrific show.
But there's no time now for going slow.
It's time to give MonCrief the stage to specifically make the case terrifically instead of to rightly rage generally that Obama's a disgrace.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
