Image 01 Image 03

“Acts of Terror” is to Obama what “is” was to Clinton

“Acts of Terror” is to Obama what “is” was to Clinton

Consider last night a call to action.

My initial impressions of the Town Hall debate were reflected in my guest post at USA Today, Obama needed debate blowout but didn’t get it:

The question as far as the election goes is who drove the narrative which matters. While Obama landed many class envy and “war on women” punches, Obama barely attempted to defend a brutal exposition by Romney on four years of broken promises and failed economic results. It was the issue people care about, and it was Romney’s strongest part of the debate by far ….

While Obama supporters will be heartened, Obama needed to convince people that the next four years will be more successful than the past four years. He didn’t even try to make the case.

The failure to defend his record and to explain why the next four years will be better was Obama’s greatest failure at the second debate. It was a failure which could not be overcome even by effective attacks on Romney.

My reflections the next morning are pretty much the same.  The instant polling seems to bear out that Obama “won” by a narrow margin on performance, Romney won big on the economy.

Trying to synthesize it all, consider the debate a call to action.  Anyone who wants Obama defeated should disabuse themselves of the notion that Romney’s trajectory is unstoppable.

Obama will say or do anything to win.  The best example is Libya, where Obama is trying desperately to turn the narrative from his administrations obviously false statements that the killing of our Ambassador was the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.  It has been extremely well documented that the administration was making this claim for days after it knew better.

Yet what does Obama do?  His team reminds him that he mentioned the words “act of terror” in a Rose Garden speech the day after the killing, even as his administration was in full denial mode.

The words were not used to say that the attack was preplanned or to dispute his administration line about the movie.

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,”  he said.

But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.

Instead, Obama was talking generally about “acts of terror“(plural)  and our national purpose:

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.

That false line of defense continued for a week.

In what certainly was one of the worst moves by a debate moderator ever, Candy Crowley did an instant ‘fact check” and sided with Obama, but she was wrong and now is backtracking.

Look where Obama has taken us:

Obama’s abject and offensive failure of leadership and political gamesmanship now is just a word game.  A term thrown into a several minute long speech is being used to defend against a mountain of evidence that Obama and his administration misled the public for political purposes.

Obama knows that by using the phrase “acts of terror” in the Rose Garden the day after the killing he was not contradicting his administration’s line that it was a spontaneous reaction to a movie.  Yet Obama stood up last night and made that claim anyway.

Let this be a wake up call, and a call to action.  We are up against, to steal a phrase, “an unusually good liar.”

Take nothing for granted.  Work even harder to defeat Obama.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Obama knew that Candy would slap Romney down! Play it again. Whenever has Hussein ever encouraged Romney to “proceed” to slap him? It was like “Witness for the Prosecution,” Professor, a setup.

I believe Candy works for the Clinton News Network? [sarcasm off]

9thDistrictNeighbor | October 17, 2012 at 9:09 am

Ah, USA Today…the trolls will be heading over shortly.

Candy Crowley, perhaps the beefiest of all presstitutes, was probably in need of a “sugar fix” and wasn’t thinking clearly.

Or perhaps she was thinking clearly, and decided to throw a lifeline to the Kenyan Messiah.

Take your pick.

No surprises from Crowley last night.

Biggest surprise is that, according to Obamalogic, the more the economy recovers, the higher gas prices will climb.

RNC needs to get an ad out immediately with Obama spouting that nonsense, with a graphic or voice over asking what the price of gas will be if Obama’s “recovery” continues. How much more recovery can we stand?

    IceColdTroll in reply to windbag. | October 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Haha, good point! Yeah, that would make a great TV spot — images of Cal. stations where it’s over $5/gal. and Sock Puppet on a loop talking about a recovery.

1. The Left is cheering. The Right is spinning.

2. Romney was correct on the substance wrt Libya but he botched the phrasing. Maybe he was briefed wrongly during debate prep.

3. I’ve commented before that someone seeking to displace an incumbent President, even one as bad as Obama, can afford very few unforced errors.

    IceColdTroll in reply to gs. | October 17, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    How do we know who prevailed? Check whether or not the Collaborationist Media is still pontificating that “debates don’t really matter.”

    DemNoMore in reply to gs. | October 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Romney is doing a great job. Agreed there are a few instances, both in the debates and just campaigning in general — “binders of women” and the 47% remark, for example, in which he could have stated accurate comments in a more pc manner. But overall he is coming across as a person extraordinarily gifted with talents much needed by a President facing the many crises he will have to deal with. He also, to my surprise, is coming across as someone who genuinely cares about the people of this country. I would worry that if he started laboring over every word that comes out of his mouth he will lose the very qualities that are winning people over.

    gs in reply to gs. | October 17, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Not likely to influence Real Conservatives™, but interesting: Although her wording (“absolutely epic fail”) is harsher than mine, Megan McArdle’s assessment is consistent with my comment. I just came across it here and here.

DINORightMarie | October 17, 2012 at 9:41 am

I agree, Professor; it’s time to redouble our efforts, to get as many people off the fence, or want to stay at home, and move them to Romney/Ryan and VOTE this disastrous regime OUT on Nov. 6th.

Now, a different take on the “acts of terror” exchange….. I believe this semantic battle may turn into an “empty chair” moment, and prove advantageous for Romney. This points to Obama’s desire to lie and weasel his way out of his lies, his ineptitude, his outright failures. Shameful, obvious lies – now proven to be wrong (even Crowley says so….now). This will get a LOT of air time, lots of examination and debate about Libya and Benghazi-gate, going into the final foreign policy debate. Obama “empty chair” tried to lie his way out, again, shirking responsibility. The Emperor’s got no clothes, again!

Also, from this exchange, this spotlighted and confirmed a major concern of many going in: will Crowley drop the mask, and protect this POTUS?! Will she inject her bias and/or shield the POTUS? Yep – she did. In spades. And no after-the-fact “oopsie!” (when virtually no one was watching) can correct that, or exonerate her for injecting herself into the debate.

Romney had to debate Obama AND Crowley. If you saw that as I did, it just underscores how well Romney did in this “battle.” Two-against-one debating is not how the game is played, in the eyes of Americans who are paying attention.

On another note, Obama’s hostility and dagger-eyed snarky demeanor made came off as weak, childish, and VERY unpresidential.

But, that “act of terror” lie from Obama was his “empty chair” moment, IMHO.

Clinton began the decline of the American presidency with his snake oil charm, his schmaltzy contempt for the American people, his parsed lies and his sexual antics. Obama is following in Clinton’s shoes (with cronyism instead of sexual antics) and adding his own poisonous politics.

oBlama is an admixture of lies, smarminess and disaffection for America (a foreign exchange student, we should send oBlama back).

Congrats on the USA Today gig! (You will remember us little people when you make it big, right? 😛 )

Glad the rest of the country will “get to know you” now –

Professor: I think that this debate’s ultimate results will play out like the VP Debate results — it will take a few days for voters to process everything, then they will decide Obama lost.

I think the comments from the Frank Luntz group last night underscore that point:

Candy seemed to interrupt Mr. Romney almost as many times as did Crazy Joe … all that was missing was a bizarre chuckle.

I agree with Mutnod up there^

Sure we like immediate gratification and “scorekeeping” that validates ourselves but we dont need to be sold via debates. Its the uncomitted voters tat are the issue and Obama is hitting a stonewall.
Why? He’s fighting one big problem: Loss of Credibility.

Voters simply arent buying his magic act any longer.
The polls show it. Eventhe media wall around the guy is showing signs of fracture.

Obama aint winning. And he wont in November.

    Ragspierre in reply to jimzinsocal. | October 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    So many I’ve read here and on Joel’s thread are completely missing what is happening.

    These debates…more than any ever before…are not discrete events in history. They are part of a continuous thread.

    Obama went on record several times last night with obvious, demonstrable lies. Those will be highlighted from now until election day by New Media and social media.

    And the Creepy Crowley/Bad Luck Barry tag team just infused ALLLLLL kinds of new energy into the Libya SCANDALSSSSSS.

    This was a very good ten days for R-R.

listingstarboard | October 17, 2012 at 10:33 am

The whole debate was a set up. Obama most certainly knew the questions before hand–and the Rose Garden cover was planned. Crowley is a hideous beast.

Anticipating this very issue when she saw David Axelrod and others already trying to repair the obvious damage done to the “video narrative” by Dear Leader, Alana Goodman of Commentary wrote an entire article about it more than two weeks before the debate, on September 30.

I’d only add one thing to Alana’s analysis here. If you read the entire speech he delivered on September 12 before flying off to Las Vegas, long before his generalized and very UNcommitted use of the phrase “acts of terror” in the context of 9/11/01 (not the attack of 9/11/12), Obama FIRST made it a priority in his speech to highlight the theme of his Cairo Embassy’s Apologia to the Muslim World: We must not provoke the Muslim world by making statements that would “denigrate” their “religious feelings.” This was, of course, the theme of taxpayer-funded advertisements he and Hillary appeared in in Pakistan long after the Rose Garden speech and this was of course the theme of his UN speech in which he warned that “The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Obama did his “I’m Offended” routine again, saved for when he is most guilty. This needs to be put in a youtube ad, and a short version TV commercial. Show his claim that he stated from the start it was terrorism, and all the times he and Rice certified it was a spontaneous reaction to the video.

The key point … his claim at the debate that he called it terrorism from the start. with a big FALSE label stamped on it. Then include times he was asked specifically if it was terrorism, and he would never utter the word. How did he “unknow” it was terrorism, when he was on “The View”?

The conclusion “why act so offended Mr. Obama … you spent two weeks telling the American people a lie for political reasons, now you deny it ever happened. America knows better” close with quick series of Obama’s “it was the video” audios, with big “Didn’t call it a terrorist attack for two weeks”

I forgot to mention in my previous post about Alana Goodman’s article at Commentary. that her article shows that Candy Crowley HERSELF spoke to David Axelrod on September 30, 2012 about this very issue of calling the attack an act of terror. So we now know that she took great dictation from Axelrod.

The “no acts of terror” line was a CYA placeholder. If/when the efforts to obfuscate the timeline failed they could then point to that as evidence he never tried to deny that it was terrorism. That’s how the President can be the last one to deny it was a terrorist attack (on the View), while now claiming to be the first to call it an “act of terror.” I am neither fooled nor amused.

I agree with Mutnodjmet. Mitt got Obama on the record in a knowing falsehood. It’s not everything, but it’s enough from that single point.

It would be good for Romney supporters to remember that there’s only so much available to be won in a debate. For example, there’s was a recent comment by a Democrat in the San Diego Union-Tribune saying that in the last debate, Romney started saying things wholly different from what he’s been saying recently. I would have placed it differently. I’d have said there’s a divergence in what Mitt’s been saying and what the Obama campaign has been saying he’s saying. I doubt that the second debate changed that man’s mind.

I was surprised by the results of the Lunz focus group, too. They mentioned the major points I took away, and they homed in on the divergence between the Obama administrations actions over the last four years and the policies he espoused in the last two debates.

The way to defeat Obama is with facts, facts, facts, and more facts. Don’t give him and his team the opportunity to go into the “spin zone.” I think the first debate proved this.

Now, how to keep presenting these before the American people? There ought to be some way of having them as a sidebar, 15-20 second vids, or links. Whatever form used they need to be short, to the point and factual.

The American people need to hear them again and again until election day. We need them to repel Obama. And, Romney needs them to win!

In Obama’s speech from the Rose Garden, before the phrase “acts of terror” ever leaves his lips — in fact, 6 paragraphs before — HE BLAMES THE VIDEO.

In Paragraph One, he gives his salutations. In Two and Three, he specifically, talks about the attack in Benghazi. So, there can be no confusion that what next comes might have been meant to apply to what had happened the day before in Cairo.


He also labels what happened in Benghazi in the next sentence:

“But there is absolutely no justification to THIS TYPE OF SENSELESS VIOLENCE. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” (Paragraph 4 of 13)

Is “this type of senseless violence” synonymous with “terrorism”? It sounds more like the way in which someone might describe a drive-by shooting in Chicago that killed a couple of kids. It certainly doesn’t describe what happened in Benghazi or a type of “workplace violence” involving a US Major/Soldier of Allah in the Army, who is screaming Allahu Akbar while killing 13 and wounding more than 3 dozen.

In Paragraph Eight, he speaks of the original 09.11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Arlington Cemetery. In Paragraph Nine, he talks of the sacrifices Americans have made in pursuit and defence of freedom.

Then Paragraph Ten:

“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.” (Paragraph 10 of 13)

The first two lines of Paragraph Four would be irrelevant if he was going to designate the attack “terrorism.”

Also, under Federal law, acts of terrorism, BY DEFINITION, are premeditated. Thus, they cannot be “spontaneous uprisings”…ever.

The bottom line is that Obama, first and specifically, called Benghazi “a type of senseless violence” (like a Chicago drive-by shooting) and blamed it on the video in his Rose Garden statement.

Here’s the full transcript:

I demand to know why Obama broke White House protocol then, calling something terrorism when the correct phrase is “man caused disaster”

So, Obama prepared for the debate, and now the “moderator” is on record for preparing to provide cover fire should he stumble.

The question is what is the definition of “moderator”.

“Act of Terror”..! So, he used this phrase ONCE in the Rose Garden in relation to Benghazi?? Jeeeeeeepppppppeeeeerrrrssssssss..!!

What vapid nonsense this Chicago punk and his toads spout. Lemme see, Your Infantile Majesty, does that maybe mean that you once whispered in a closet that the Ft.Hood Islamist Butchery was an “Act of Teror”..? Ya know, Mr.Messiah, before you dubbed it “Workplace Violence”? Or, did’ja mumble the words, “War on Radical Islamist TERROR” before dubbing Afghanistan an “Overseas Contingency Operation”, you loathsome Moral Midget. George W. Bush had a massive, honorable set of Cojones. You, El Dweebo, have a Vast Testicular Concavity.(VTC)

[…] -William Jacobson thinks the Debate was pretty much of a draw and he believes there’s a lesson in this [he would, being a Professor and all]: Trying to synthesize it all, consider the debate a call to action. Anyone who wants Obama defeated should disabuse themselves of the notion that Romney’s trajectory is unstoppable. […]

Reuters and other news agencies are saying that the USA (read Obama) hired the murderers. In other words, the murderers were hired to “protect” the victims. Obama can say that he didn’t know they were assassins, but that group of soldiers fly the Al Qaeda flag. This was reported before the debate, so Romney had his chance.