Some More Debate Dissection

I just want to touch on the following general points:

  • President Obama has no agenda for a second term. That ought to worry people a whole lot.

  • I think that we should have another debate in which Candy Crowley goes up against Candy Crowley. Maybe Mitt Romney can moderate; at least he would do an honest refereeing job.
  • Speaking of Crowley’s performance, read Noah Rothman, who shows why her performance is an indictment of the media in general.
  • Read Erik Wemple as well. He emphasizes that Barack Obama tried to avoid the question on Libya, and points out that after the debate, the president admitted that “he delayed calling the attack a [terrorist] attack,” and refrained from using “the full ‘terrorist’ designation” for “about two weeks.” Which, um, is pretty much the point Mitt Romney was making.
  • And do read Will Inboden, who writes a passage worth highlighting:

. . . the core question from Benghazi is whether it was a pre-meditated attack by an organized terrorist group, or spontaneous mob violence in response to the anti-Muhammed video. The available evidence overwhelmingly substantiates that it was the former, yet for over a week after the attack the Obama administration systematically insisted that it was the latter.

This line was most evident in U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points, delivered verbatim at the behest of the White House on multiple news shows. Those talking points were explicitly designed to do two things: 1) knock back the “this was a terrorist attack” allegation and 2) advance the White House’s preferred angle that the assault on the consulate was a spontaneous mob response to the offensive video. This deliberate messaging campaign achieved both goals temporarily, until more evidence began to surface publicly about both the nature of the attack and the early reporting on it by the American intelligence community.

Only after this campaign crumbled did the Obama administration decide to pivot awkwardly to the new angle that President Obama himself pushed last night — creating the misleading impression that the White House had never peddled the “this wasn’t a pre-meditated terrorist attack” line in the first place.

It’s simply no longer tenable to pretend that Barack Obama was shown to have been correct in his debate claims regarding the administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi. The facts just don’t bear it out.

  1. Beach Baby

    “President Obama has no agenda for a second term. That ought to worry people a whole lot.”

    Correction: President Obama has not revealed his agenda for a second term. That ought to worry people a whole lot. 

  2. genferei

    MSM delenda est, and all that. Debates are only valuable because they are the only way a conservative candidate can pierce the fog of disinformation created by the MSM. Why these knaves and fools are then allowed to poison the debates as well is something known only to GOP operatives…

  3. Percival
    Pejman Yousefzadeh:

    It’s simply no longer tenable to pretend that Barack Obama was shown to have been correct in his debate claims regarding the administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi. The facts just don’t bear it out. · · 5 hours ago

    …and yet that is what he’s doing and he’s going to get away with it, because the Watchdog Media has become the Palace Guard.  If Barack Obama wants to rewrite history in real-time, the MSM are prepared to forget anything and everything that stands in his way.

    Obama concocts a convenient reality, and the usual suspects fall over themselves getting in line with it.

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  4. Devereaux

    The facts don’t bear out much of anything the president has “claimed” – from the worst depression since the Great Depression to it was W’s fault to “let’s not rush to judgement” at Ft. Hood, to lowering the unemployment in the country, to paying a “fair share”. Pretty much everything spoken of in this administration as a “success” has been smoke and mirrors to get there, right down to Michelle’s recent comments about how Barack is “open to compromise”.

  5. liberal jim

    In a prime time debate O has indicated that he knew  on 9/12 with a high degree of certainty that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror.  Responsible presidents do no label incidents ” acts of terror” without being almost certain they are.  That means that from 9/13 – 9/20 the President and his spokes-persons were being fundamentally dishonest and tried to deceive the press and the American people.  

    Anyone with half a brain would conclude that DC was aware that a act of terror took place with in hours of the incident.  O confirmed this was true.  I light of what was said to the press and American people subsequently, journalists should be asking  if O should resign  and not spend their time parsing words.

  6. Ross C

    It is incredible to me that the administration is allowed to fall back on the canard that they did not call it terrorism because they are taking their time to gather the facts (which I excerpt from the CC interview with Axelrod below).

    Were they careful taking their time regarding blaming the youtube video?  It is really the worst of both worlds.  The administration shot from the hip on the youtube video in the biggest knee jerk of the year, and then dragged their feet on the terrorism angle which appears to be the truth.  To me this means something substantial about the administration’s view on foreign policy, this is not just political.

    “AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. But when you’re the responsible party, when you’re the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was — this is being thoroughly investigated.

  7. Capt. Aubrey

    It is also a spectacular verision of faux indignation over playing politics with an issue that would make Claude Raines blush with embarassment. A fellow called John Harwood who styles himself a political reporter on CNBC blew it off one morning by arrogantly suggesting that voters know the middle east is violent and prone to terror attacks when obviously the real issue is their blant disregard for the truth. For anyone who calls himself a journalist not to realize this is truly beyond the pale.

  8. Indaba
    Marlene Cowan: “President Obama has no agenda for a second term. That ought to worry people a whole lot.”

    Correction: President Obama has not revealedhis agenda for a second term. That ought to worry people a whole lot.  · 5 hours ago

    Dinesh De Silva’s movie lays out the possibilities.

    Obama is the front man. Who is behind him?

  9. Joseph Paquette

    I don’t like the town hall format.  I’m sorry to admit, but the average, ‘undecided’ American doesn’t ask very helpful questions.   If at this point, as an adult your undecided, your expertise is too low to ask a presidential candidate a question.   Six questions from die hard democrats and six from red to the bone, republicans would have been much much better.  

  10. Mel Foil

    I think Obama’s big fear was that some of the Libyans that killed Ambassador Stevens would be Libyan rebels that Obama was supporting (and arming) just a year ago. Better (for him) that they should be a disorganized civilian mob that came out of nowhere, and had nothing to do with bringing down Gaddafi with Obama’s help.

  11. Pejman Yousefzadeh
    C

    I am with you. The townhall format is more a sideshow than a serious way to find out about the views of the presidential candidates.

    Joseph Paquette: I don’t like the town hall format.  I’m sorry to admit, but the average, ‘undecided’ American doesn’t ask very helpful questions.   If at this point, as an adult your undecided, your expertise is too low to ask a presidential candidate a question.   Six questions from die hard democrats and six from red to the bone, republicans would have been much much better.   · October 18, 2012 at 9:44am