Crowley’s Fake Fact Check: Debate Conspiracy?
Unlike the first debate which produced an inarguable victory for Romney followed by a real electoral bounce, the sequel was anticlimactically typical: an inconclusive result that yielded paltry fruit for either competitor. Still, Obama enjoyed one dramatic rhetorical victory when, caught in a dispute with Romney over precisely when he labeled the Benghazi embassy attacks the work of terrorists, moderator Candy Crowley interjected and took Obama’s side. It was jarring to see a purportedly impartial arbiter of the contest fact-check in real time, essentially pronouncing one candidate right and the other wrong by fiat.
Now armed with the lucidity that often only issues from hindsight, the entire scene seemed to unfold somewhat suspiciously. First of all, how could Crowley be so sure, in the heat of the contentious moment, what exactly was said in that Rose Garden address that she could confidently pronounce upon it? This is not an insignificant intervention for a moderator whose entire function is defined by evenhanded neutrality. And so swiftly, without so much as a moment of hesitation or cautious reluctance she made her momentous mark. It seemed as if she had prepared for the sensational exchange, as if her “spontaneous” interjection was previously rehearsed.
Also, her position flatly contradicts her own previously stated views on the matter. Back on September 30th, on CNN’s “State of the Union”, she pointedly asked Sen. John McCain why it took Obama and his administration 17 days to finally offer a “sort of definitive statement” that the Benghazi offensive was, in fact, a “pre-planned attack by a terrorist group”. She followed up this question with another pertinent one: “Why do you think and are you bothered that it has taken them this long from September 11th to now to get to this conclusion?” The question we now have for Crowley is this: when did you change your own mind on this issue so decisively it compelled you to take a candidate’s side in a live presidential debate?
Immediately after Crowley (wrongly) contradicted Romney, Obama smugly jumped in: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” This was also a well-timed contribution that at least seemed too deft to be extemporaneous. And as one of the town hall participants confirmed, the applause that immediately followed Obama’s line came from his wife, Michelle, openly flouting the prohibition against any audible reactions from the audience.
Prior to the contentiousness of the debate itself, the two warring campaigns shared an unusual moment of agreement: both were concerned about statements made by Crowley that, contrary to the rules jointly determined by both sides, she would actively shape and guide the debate, asking direct questions and following up others. As she assertively put it: “I’m not a fly on a wall”. But given her well known political leanings to the left, why would Obama’s campaign object to her more active participation? She wasn’t exactly unbiased in her superintendence of the contest: she interrupted Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times. She granted Obama the last word in 8 of 11 exchanges. She gave Obama 9% more speaking time, 44:04 minutes to 40:05. Of the 11 questions she autonomously chose, 6 were specifically hostile to Romney, 3 to Obama, and 2 were essentially neutral. On what grounds were Obama’s campaign staffers anxious she would use her power to Romney’s advantage? Could it be that their show of apprehension was a strategic ruse designed to preemptively draw attention away from their collusion with Crowley? The debate rules were, in fact, changed almost at the last minute to permit Crowley a significantly greater measure of freedom to intercede at her own discretion.
After a farrago of criticism, both for the inappropriateness of her intrusion in the action of the debate and because she was factually wrong, Crowley recanted her faux fact check with no inconsiderable embarrassment. Now she maintains, trying her best to deliver the concession with a dollop of self-justification, that while Romney was “right in the main” he still “picked the wrong word”. For those not accustomed to disentangling the knots of rhetorical obfuscation, that means that, on the substance of the matter, Romney was right and she was wrong.
I’m always intestinally skeptical of conspiratorial theories, preferring my accounts of things to abide by the simplest economy of explanation possible. Precipitous leaps of faith over evidentiary hurdles tend to be vulnerable to our own political prejudices, too easily captive of wishful versus critical thinking. All of this is presented as unconfirmed suspicion and philosophical hypothesis generated by the undeniable oddness of Candy Crowley’s decision to wade far into the waters of the debate and choose sides. All we can know for sure is that her actions were egregiously indecorous, that she was dead wrong on the facts, and that her errors helped perpetuate demonstrable lies by the president, however much offense he feigns on camera at the charge. Conspiracy or not, this should be damning enough.
—
Ivan Kenneally is Editor in Chief of the Daily Witness.
Category: Election 2012, Featured, Uncategorized
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
• Crowley did a disservice to herself and the nation. It appeared that the issue as choreographed. Why did she have the transcript? Did she have also a transcript of what Romney was going to say? — She should just have said: You are on your own Mr. President… and she would have done her job. What do people talk now…how Crowley was the “Lifeline” of the President… She simply did not do her job as a moderator. She did her job as a bias reporter, and the country saw it. She will never realize the damage she did to the debate and the country because now Crowley is just running around giving excuses. Now she is just excuses, after excuses. — The fact is that the President might have said the word “terrorist” but it did not refer to the Libya attack. Why did he have all his people and why did he blame over and over a tape that did not have to do with the actual killing of our people in Libya…and now the cover up and getting mad and saying that the issue is being politicized? Why did the President did not attend the situation personally instead of going to Las Vegas for fundraisings and called the situation “A BUMP”…Frankly, this is not leadership, this is not the debacle we need for the next four years…What about Fast & Furious…what is going on with that? As of today, what is going on with the Libya embarrassment?
A different perspective: Crowley opened the issue for the nation to evaluate what actually happened. Do we now see a media bias in Crowley? (Yes); do we now smell cover-up in our administration? (Yes); do we now know that the President distorts the truth or as he says: lies? (Yes); do we now see his political weakness and inexperience? (Yes); the answer to all of the above is YES, YES, YES, YES.
And key question: Would I now vote for Obama? My Answer is: No, not again.
It wasn’t difficult for Crowley to anticipate Romney’s assertion that Obama never mentioned the possibility of a terrorist attack for weeks afterwards. He’d been saying so on the stump, and his statements had been looked into and debunked as untrue. Any reporter who wasn’t aware of those facts, especially one who was scheduled to moderate a presidential debate, wouldn’t be much of a journalist.
Obama DID label the attack an act of terror the following day in the Rose Garden. Does that mean he knew it was a deliberate organized offensive by an al Kaida-like group? No, of course not. It would take time and effort to investigate and come to that conclusion. So what? Not all presidents want to be cowboys like Bush and shoot from the hip, and I, for one, appreciate such caution.
@Roger. Go back and actually read the transcript rather than swallowing the tripe from the mainstream media. The President discusses the Benghazi deaths right off the bat during his remarks in the Rose Garden and says nothing about it being an act of terror. Then, several minutes later, after shifting to a discussion of his commemoration of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks the previous, he talks of “no acts of terror.” Context is important. And less there be any need for further substantiation, consider the additional media opportunities the President had in the days that followed the Benghazi attack to characterize it as an act of terror. He would not do so, not on the Letterman show, not on the View, and not on Univision. They were either “still gathering facts” or blaming it on a video.
Hardly “several minutes later.” It’s more like 30 seconds.
I hope it was apparent to all the 70 million viewers of the debate that the President lied on national television. He and the MSM must not be allowed to hijack this election with prevarication.
And as far as women social issues are concerned, I do not need either candidate to determine or define my freedom of choices, nor to “protect” me as Obama likes to suggest he does. All Obama does is denigrate women by interfering in the personal areas of our lives. I further believe that if I need birth control pills or other “female” medical services, I am not going to expect my government to pay for it.
As for abortion: “Please don’t stick that pin in me.”
The little fetus said.
“Because if you do I promise you
I will become quite dead.
I didn’t ask to be here,
I didn’t create this circumstance.
But now that I am truly alive
Why not give me a chance.”
Wow, you just make things up. Crowley was most certainly not “dead wrong”. You have no further credibility, one must assume everything in your article, which is by the way completely unattributed, is equally bogus. Any reason to think you ever tell the truth?
Crowley clearly had the facts right. She probably watched Obama deliver his remarks in the Rose Garden and simply knew that fact from personal memory.
Your commentary about her past comments are just a strawman argument about things that Romney never referred to. Maybe in an alternative universe where he said something different your points would have some relevance, but not in the real world we live in.
I’m starting to lose faith in the critical thinking ability of Americans. Crowley herself indicated afterward, in order to cover her tracks, that Romney was correct “in the main” in what he asserted but used the “wrong word.” Yes, she was conceding that Romney point was correct (i.e., the President took nearly two weeks after the attacks to actually acknowledge they were an act of terror rather than a spontaneous demonstration), but that someone could find reference somewhere in the President’s remarks to “acts” of terror. Lame. And shame on you Americans who just swallow what the media offers up to you without scrutinizing it whatsoever.
Actually, Crowley DID make a mistake, but the mistake occurred in her walkback when she said that Romney was right ‘in the main’. An examination of the transcript, however, easily demonstrates that the walkback statement is literally incorrect. Although one might argue re the efficacy of her debate interruption, what she said during the interruption is literally true. Here’s why: Romney asserted that Obama did not describe the Libya assault and the murder of an ambassador as ‘an act of terror’ until approximately two weeks later. That’s all he said. repeat: that’s all he said-and this is literally false. Obama, literally, DID refer to the event as ‘an act of terror’ the next day. That’s all there is to it, period, end of story. Could it be that the author of this article can’t see this because he’s wearing ideological blinders? Evidently, Romney is so comfortable living in a bubble while simultaneously standing in the middle of an echo chamber that he didn’t even know he was making a statement that was literally false, and apparently the author of this article doesn’t know it either.
Obama did not state Benghazi attack as an act of terror. He used “act of terror” in general.
He knew from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack since White House was watching on the video LIVE. To tell the truth was not in his plan, since he was trying to convince us, that thanks to him, we don’t have terrorists any longer and all ME loves us.
Admitting that he failed right before the election?Not a chance. Lie to Americans if he has to, you betcha.
Marina-
What video LIVE? You seem to be confusing this with the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. Our presence in Libya is very limited with lots of restrictions.
President Obama was ONLY talking about Benghazi in the Rose Garden and it was pretty evident to everyone everywhere that it was an “act of terror” or could also be called the equivalent “terrorist attack.” Exactly how it all came about was not yet known by our intelligence community and it took a couple of weeks for them to piece it all together and even at this point the investigation continues.
That Romney was trying to force a negative onto the President is clearly evident when he prematurely issued his first statement. And when he continued to make an issue out of it “while” a complicated investigation was still proceeding.
It also forced people like UN Ambassador Rice to have to comment on the situation when she (and others) did not have the full story because the investigation was not complete. President Obama’s Rose Garden remarks were very appropriate and intended to calm a nation stunned by these events. He accomplished his goal.
It is not unusual for investigations of this nature in unstable places with no easy access to the facts to take a long time before an accurate assessment can be made. The “confusion” is being strewn by people like this author who demand the impossible and then misconstrue any information that is given. Basically, politicizing a sensitive national security issue.
By the way, I see no daylight between “acts of terror” and “terrorist attack” and have seen no plausible explanation differentiating them.