Bo Shiefer is another Marxist, have watched him for over 30 years, he is going to be there to help Obama run his mouth about anything but his own record. But come Nov. 7 Romney will be known as the next president, anyway. Bob should retire.
Bob Sheifer is a far left newsman ,I have watched him for over 30 years. Don't expect him to be fair to Romney, he will be in Obama's pocket. The colleges have been cranking out liberal puppets as journalist for many years. Karl Marx manifesto included taking over the schools and perverting the minds of the next generation to become socialist, then in time communist.
And the latest is that Obama has/or is working out a deal with Iran that Iran will stop uranium enrichment (for 5 minutes????) in exchange for the lifting of sanctions - an October surprise, prior to the election.
After viewing the video, it's inconceivable to me that they would even refer to it. It was amateurish and silly with a few LOL parts. The whole premise makes them look like idiots to suggest it was that stupid video.
Hillary should resign in shame and go back and TRY to live with wild Bill.
The President who hates the second amendment armed drug lords in Mexico. Fast and Furious killed a border agent and numerous innocent Mexicans. First cover-up.
In the second debate, Obama got away with saying that he had characterized the attack on the Benghazi consulate as a terrorist incident because the moderator confirmed his point; in fact he misrepresented the facts when he said "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that … this was an act of terror." Reince Priebus, the Republican party chairman, instantly seized on this inaccuracy and accused Obama of lying and others are sure to follow suit. This inaccuracy will likely haunt Obama over the next three weeks and turn the Libyan fiasco into an even bigger problem for his reelection campaign.
The same President who hates the second amendment armed our enemies, the terrorists in Libya. Second cover-up. Almost entirely missing from the debate surrounding the anti-U.S. attacks in Libya is the administration’s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow Mideast governments. But in the case of Libya, the arming of jihadists may have directly resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.
The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.
King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.
During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Even Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted during the Libyan revolution that Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
WHY WAS AMBASSADOR STEVENS KILLED?
By Patrick Buchanon
Behind the Benghazi Cover-Up
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday - October 16, 2012
On Sept. 11, scores of men with automatic weapons and RPGs launched a night assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and set the building ablaze. Using mortars, they launched a collateral attack on a safe house, killing two more Americans, as other U.S. agents fled to the airport.
On Sept. 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the attack came out of a spontaneous protest caused by an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.
On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the entire nation the attack had not been premeditated or preplanned but emanated from a spontaneous protest of the nasty video.
On Sept. 25, Obama at the United Nations mentioned the video six times.
But when they were pushing this tale, what did the White House actually know?
For we have now learned that the assault was observed in near real time by the State Department's Charlene Lamb, who was in contact with the security section at the Benghazi compound.
The next day, Sept. 12, Fox News and Eli Lake of The Daily Beast reported that U.S. intelligence had concluded it was terrorism. Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence had identified some of the terrorists as members of an al-Qaida affiliate.
Thus either administration higher-ups were ignorant for more than a week of what their own agents knew, and are thus manifestly incompetent, or they colluded in a cover-up and orchestrated deception.
As the facts are revealed, the weight of evidence tilts toward the latter conclusion.
Why? Because we now know there never was any protest at the Benghazi compound -- not against an anti-Muslim video or anything else.
And if there was no protest, who sent Carney out to blame the attack on the protest? And if there was no protest, who programmed Rice and put her on five separate Sunday talk shows to attribute the massacre to a protest that never happened?
If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned?
Indeed, why was Rice sent out at all? She is not in the chain of command. Why she accepted the assignment is obvious. She wants to be Hillary Clinton's successor as secretary of state. But who put her up to this? Who pushed her out front to mislead us?
The CIA's David Petraeus or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should have been sent out to say what we knew, five days after the massacre. As Chris Stevens reported to the secretary of state and President Obama, why was Hillary or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon not sent out to explain what had happened to Stevens and the others?
Looking back, Carney and Rice appear to have been used by their superiors.
Carney would never have gone out to speculate on his own about what happened in Benghazi. His line on Sept. 14 had to have been fed to him by the White House chief of staff, Donilon, Obama or all of them.
As for Rice, someone contacted those five TV networks to put her on. And the party line she delivered -- the opposite of the truth -- had to have been fed to her, almost word for word -- by Donilon or the chief of staff.
Could Donilon or Hillary have been in the dark about what Rice was going to say? Could they have still been in the dark about what had happened five days before in Benghazi, when Hillary's own deputy Charlene Lamb had followed the terrorist attack in near real time?
Hillary and the entire Obama national security team are in that famous photo with Obama watching Seal Team Six in Abbottabad when Osama bin Laden was taken down.
Was the National Security Council alerted by Lamb when she was observing the attack in near real time? Did the NSC also observe?
Was the president told by the NSC that we were getting real-time intel and video from Benghazi, and would he like to see?
There is an even more fundamental question:
Why did the White House persist with the phony story of a protest against a video being the cause of Ambassador Stevens' death, when they had to know there was no protest?
The most plausible explanation is that the truth -- we were being hit with the worst terror attack since 9/11 in a city we saved -- would have exposed Obama's boasting about his Libya triumph and al-Qaida being "on the run" and "on the path to defeat" as absurd propaganda.
Al-Qaida is now in Libya, Mali, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Pakistan.
And the epidemic of anti-American riots across the Muslim world, with Arab Spring elections bringing to power Islamist regimes, testify to the real truth. After four years of Obama, it is America that is on the run in the Middle East.
But we can't let folks find that out until after Nov. 6.
Hence the Benghazi cover-up.
Great ad. But remember, this is only an issue because of Romney. The deaths of 4 Americans are not news-worthy to the Democrats.
It's a fantastic ad. I wish it would play on all the networks , sports channels all week and the time slot RIGHT BEFORE THE NEXT DEBATE.
Even though I agree we know Obama is a LIAR, I think it would be better for Romney to say the words like- YOU ARE MISLEADING the country Mr President. I know you got in your sound bite at the last debate, but that wasnt 100% accurate, and its time for you to set the record straight now.
We want Romney to remain the gentleman.
Great ad - 'boom' indeed!
I love the way Romney looks at Obama when asking if Obama said 'terrorist attack': it's game, set and match, because now this isn't going away, Romney has Obama on record as saying 'terrorist' on 9/12, thanks to the unwitting help of Madame C.
Romney can now ask - why did you go to Las Vegas immediately after the Rose Garden speech when you knew it was a terrorist attack? Or didn't you know, as your administration maintained for days it was because of the video?
Romney can now show Obama to be a liar and an incompetent in one fell swoop - well played, President Romney, well played indeed!
Why did this administration spend $70.000 to air this ad in Pakistan blaming the Benghazi attack on a video.
Even our enemies can see that our massive debt created by Obamao is putting us at risk
The words "LIE or LYING" are not being used
The truth is that they did LIE
and are now LYING
about the LIE
For the sake of the Country
He must ask God for forgiveness AND
He MUST call ZERO a LIAR
I wanna repeat this all day, through out the thread, RUN THIS AD NATIONWIDE. Also find a way to have the snippet of him calling out to Crawley to 'sing it louder", frame a whole ad around that exchange to show both Crawleys blatant error and O's want to have her mislead and deceive.
What does Obama know? How to destroy a nation in 4 years? When did he know it: it was the plan ever since Bill Ayers became his idol. Obama is a pathetic zilch, a total zero, with no redeeming qualities; a totally worthless man.
Honestly, I think Romney was setting Obama up for exactly this vector of attack before Candy went all Tonya Harding on the rules.
As soon she jumped in, Mitt had to realize the danger and WISELY backed off. Conservatives are mad he didn't take the swing that was obvious, but when you see that you are outnumbered with so many tactical things that could go wrong, the conservative and measured move was indeed to move on.
Live to fight another day.
And that day should be Monday.
Taking a step back, and not focussing on what Romney could've or should've said but simply looking at the whole set-up, we get these 'gifts':
• incontrovertible evidence that the moderator was shilling for Obama;
• incontrovertible evidence that this was a set-up between Obama and the 'debate' organisation;
• incontrovertible evidence that rules were broken (Moochelle clapping);
• Benghazi now in the consciousness of a huge number of Americans;
• no wriggle-room at all for Obama, he's damned if he says it was a video (contradicting his own words) and he's damned if he says it was a terrorist attack (Las Vegas visit right after; Carney, Rice, Obama lying).
If the Romney campaign had planned for such outcome, it couldn't have played better.
Agree - also, this was not an audience of 'undecideds', but plants, as evidenced by the questions crawler chose. He had the whole room against him. But, no worries, he'll get the facts out on Monday, and he still won this debate.
We got lucky. The idiot LIED instead of saying "we don't know the details yet". He hung his butt out as a target. Now it's going to get a big fat Dart in it.
I wish Romney would have seized on this at the debate. When Candy said, he did say and Obama asked can you say it louder, Romney should have said-" Oh, so you knew it the next day and then sent Susan Rice to 5 Sunday shows to say it was the reaction to the video? I thought so!"
That's exactly the type of "Red Meat" thinking and advice that Chris Mathews types dolled out and Biden followed.
We don't need Pyrrhic victories to feed the lions.
We got this.
I also wish he had said, when Obama said to her "get the transcript" -- "Oh, so you knew the question ahead of time and knew she had the transcript? So you guys broke the debate commission rules of not knowing the questions in advance then."
I think the attack coming from an unexpected source - the moderator was so out of left field (har-har! Get it? LEFT field?!! Comedy GOLD!!) that Romney was perhaps taken aback.
He did miss a golden opportunity but Obama's such a tartget rich environment...if Obama hadn't had his wing-woman Romney would have thumped him even worse.
Given CNN's relationship with O'Bambi, Romney should have thought of this, maybe not on Benghazi but for it to at least occur.
Of course he was taken aback. Though he had to expect anything in this setup (thank you RNC for its approval) this was a perfectly planned manuveur by his opponentS on the stage (though its execution could have used some of 0's Hollywood friends coaching).
By the way solong, you are correct, romney could go on stage with a gatling gun and a severe coughing spasm and still hit vulnerable targets (not counting the moderator).
"As if "Fast and Furious" weren't enough, the administration now gives America "Slow and Spurious."
From: Benghazi: Emperor Obama's Waterloo? by Daren Jonescu
Even when caught in a lie Obama refuses to admit it. My husband is watching FBN and Dan Heninger of WSJ is on with Stuart Varney. In huge letters at the bottom of the screen are the words "IT'S NOT MY FAULT". Only a coward would refuse to admit they have been wrong, only a narcissist would consider themselves above civil and moral law, and only a reprobate would continue to try to deceive others in the manner Barack Obama has done.
Pleaaaassssse, American Crossroads, put this on national TV because our nation needs to see and hear this ad.
RUN THIS AD NATIONWIDE.It's understandable to run most ads in swing states, but with many voters growing weary of this jerkoffs lies (even with the biased (non)coverage) Romney and his team should run this ad in every state during primetime. Very powerful and undeniably true. The devils own words will envelope him in flames.
"Your sin will find you out." Numbers 32:23
"When words are many, sin is not absent." Pr 10:19
I've always said that all Mitt Romney needs to do, is allow O to talk, his words will condemn him. "Just words, just speeches."
If I have to see video of O talking to his base saying al-Qaeda is on the run one more time I'm going to puke...they are on the run all right , how many are here..how many have taken over new areas they never were before?? His base doesn't know or care what day it is..never mind have respect for what it is the military has been preventing all this time.
But don't you like how they manipulate things to look like they deported more people then any President ever, we are drilling more then any President ever..they love playing with reality...ask ranchers in Texas on the border what they find , remains of people from everywhere in the World including the M.E..What a load..
Actually, he dropped that phrase from his speeches since yesterday. I saw it on Fox News. No ‘al Qaeda on the run’ any more….