“She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.” This is what Republicans get for agreeing to let the media run something this important. The media are part of government. They censor vital information so it can’t get to defenseless people. Ms. Crowley’s behavior and admission are just 2 examples.
10/16/12, “Candy Crowley: Romney ‘Right’ That Obama Didn’t Call Libya Terror, But Thought ‘He Picked The Wrong Word’,” MediaIte, Noah Rothman
“CNN anchor and debate moderator Candy Crowley joined CNN’s panel after the debate to discuss a moment where she corrected Mitt Romney after he claimed that President Barack Obama had refused to characterize the attack in Libya an act of terror for 14 days. Crowley said that Romney’s was “right” in that the Obama administration spent weeks refusing to say that the attack was terrorism, but she thought at the time that “he picked the wrong word.”
“I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”
“Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.
“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.
Watch the clip below via CNN: (at link)”
————————————————–
Ed. note: Ms. Crowley confesses her “instincts” then garbles the rest of her excuse. The obvious point is Obama continues to use an imagined victory over Al Qaeda as a reason to re-elect him despite the fact that Al Qaeda and Islamic jihad are flourishing like never before. What is worse, with Obama’s pathetic statements, the whole world sees Americans are considered garbage by their elected representatives. We are utterly defenseless in a world of rabid savages. US politicians are well known for coddling terrorists but Obama takes it to new heights. Sign below says, “Wait for us White House! Black flag is coming soon!!!”
9/17/12, “The dangerous U.S. double standard on Islamic extremism,” Justin Gengler, Mideast.ForeignPolicy.com
“The death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials in Libya last Wednesday should serve to draw much-needed attention to an increasingly untenable contradiction in U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Even while it seeks to recover from this latest attack by Islamic radicals, United States’ unwitting support for the latter through continued patronage of that very same ideology elsewhere in the region, most clearly in Syria and in Bahrain. There, U.S. policymakers should expect equally frightening results. …
When demonstrators in Cairo and Sanaa succeeded in gaining entry into their respective U.S. embassies, in each case they replaced the U.S. flag with a black pennant bearing in white the Muslim profession of faith: “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.” The banners, which U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland downplayed disingenuously as a “plain, black flag,” should by now be familiar enough to administration officials. It is the same one adopted by other Salafi extremists, including those belonging to al Qaeda and its regional affiliates, from Mali to Yemen. Not coincidentally, it has made an appearance in each of the mass protests witnessed thus far – in Benghazi, in Tunis, in Khartoum, and even in Doha.
That the Obama administration would fail to acknowledge the flag’s overt symbolism is indicative of an uncomfortable yet enduring truth about U.S. policy in the Middle East: thatthe United States’ enemies in one country are its allies of convenience in another. Even as it reels from the first death of a sitting ambassador in more than two decades, the United States continues to supply logistical and other “command-and-control” support to rebels in Syria, while Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar pour in money and arms. Of little or insufficient concern, apparently, is the nature of those being empowered, or the broader ideological forces underlying their struggle….
The result is a social and political climate that not only features unprecedented polarization, but that presents a grave threat to U.S. interests — both political and physical — in the region.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, brought to the fore uncomfortable questions about the sources of violent Islamic extremism, and about the United States’ unwitting support for the latter through continued patronage of those who help sow the seeds of this mindset.
One hopes that these uncomfortable questions will now be revisited, and to greater substantive effect, when on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 there should occur yet another act of political violence committed by individuals associated with that very same ideology.” photo ForeignPolicy.com
-----------------------------
10/20/11, “The lost decade,” Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Institute
“That would have pointed to the Middle East’s regimes, and to our ruling class’ relationship with them, as the problem’s ultimate source. The rulers of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority had run (and continue to run) educational and media systems that demonize America. Under all of them, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Wahhabi sect spread that message in religious terms to Muslims in the West as well as at home.
- That message indicts America, among other things, for being weak.
9/27/12, “Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become “Enemy of the American People”,” Accuracy in Media, Roger Aronoff
9/21/12, ““I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy.” (Pat) Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from “organized governmental power,” they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.
Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was covered up for nine days [as of 9/21] because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack.
“We’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this,” said Caddell. “Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers.”
Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but “It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know.”
He closed his talk with these words: “The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.
When they desert those ramparts and go to serve—to decide that they will now become an active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.
And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we’ve crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.””
.
No comments:
Post a Comment