Until I looked at the Related Articles, some of which are listed at the end here, I did not realize how big this story really is. ~J
Source: Veterans Today
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt
When I was a young man, my father and I often discussed politics. His observations about the GOP stuck with me over time, to wit: that the Democrats are better at governance but the Republicans are better at campaigning; and that the GOP accuses the Democrats of the very offenses of which they are themselves most guilty.
The latest contretemps has arisen over the moderator of the second Presidential Debate answering a rhetorical question from Mitt Romney implying that the President of the United States was prevaricating–less delicately, LYING–about his response to the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, claiming that it took Barack Obama 14 days before describing it as “an act of terror”.
As the moderator, Candy Crowley, observed during the debate–gently correcting Romney–he had in fact asserted that “acts of terrorism will not stand”, which, in the context, certainly encompassed the murder, which, given its obvious political motivation, properly qualified as an assassination. The circumstances suggest that Romney and his allies have been responsible for provoking unrest in the Middle East and for orchestrating the Benghazi attack.
The Republicans have been trying to manufacture a case against Obama by taking his remark as a generalization rather than as specifically focused on the death of the ambassador. But their outrage appears to have deeper roots in the carefully contrived crafting of a trap for Obama to justify their claims that his foreign policy in the Middle East has been a failure. The plan has several elements, which the talking heads and the press have failed to see.
The GOP Gambit
The glaring weakness of the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan ticket is that it completely lacks any foreign policy expertise. Ryan has served in the House of Representatives, which does not deal with foreign policy, while Romney, as the Governor of Massachusetts, has done his best to improvise by touting his lackluster management of the Olympic Games in Utah. The Barack Obama/Joe Biden ticket, by comparison, reeks of foreign policy experience. As Steve Jones has observed,
Biden is not a foreign policy maker in the fashion of a secretary of state. Nevertheless, he served as the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations between 2001 and 2003, and again between 2007 and 2009. Between those chairmanships he was the ranking minority member of the committee.
The GOP, keenly aware of this enormous defect in their candidates, appear to have “ginned-up” an attack on Obama, which required much thought and skillful execution.
In order for Romney/Ryan to attack Obama/Biden on their greatest strength, when it is actually their own greatest weakness, I am convinced that they fashioned the following plan: (1) provoke unrest in the region by fabricating a film that denigrates the Prophet Mohammed; (2) have Bibi Netanyahu go on television to denounce the administration’s foreign policy; where (3) a team of highly-trained assassins targets one of the most successful and prominent representatives of the American government.
While these are acts of treason against the United States, there is far more than coincidence in the fashion in which these events have occurred, especially in their temporal proximity to the election and the debates.
FDR observed that, in politics, when something happens, you can bet it was not an accident. While some have claimed that Roosevelt never said it, it has the ring of truth–and it certainly applies to the present case. Had I not been doing research on these issues, including publishing “‘Innocence of Muslims’, the GOP and World War III”, I might have missed it myself.
Everyone knows about the film, which was cheaply produced and clearly meant as an insult to Muslims and calculated to provoke public protests. Netanyahu has made numerous appearances on television to make this point, where his assaults on the administration have been widely noted.
What we aren’t told is that Netanyahu and Romney are long-time friends and that Bibi, I have no doubt, believes that, should Romney become president, he will be in the position to dictate US foreign policy.
Candy derails the plan
So there are powerful reasons for the GOP vendetta against Candy Crowley for correcting Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate. Here is what she said, where the response from the right cannot be understood apart from the plot of which Romney’s attack was to be the culmination:
You hear it from FOX NEWS, from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all of “the usual suspects”, who are shills for the candidate who will do the most to benefit the rich and powerful. A great to-do is being made about it, even to the extent of suggesting that she has “discredited herself as a journalist”. According to Hillary Hill, for example,
Crowley let the president lead the American public to believe that he called the aggression and murder against four Americans a terroristic act immediately following the tragic event.
And when Mitt Romney pointed it out in the debate, Crowley cut him off at the pass, siding with the president and thus giving the viewing audience present, at home, and online a false impression that is now threatening to discredit her as a journalist.
The only ground on which they can possibly justify this claim is that he spoke of “acts of terrorism” rather than “this specific act of terrorism”, which is typical of those who are adept at the arts of spinning political stories. Even if it took two weeks to clarify whether public protests had been part of the sequence of events, Obama had already said enough for those who listened to him to cover the ambassador’s death as “an act of terrorism”.
So the GOP operators are hinging their all on whether he EXPLICITLY described it as an act of terror or only did so IMPLICITLY. And no rational person would be making so much of so little were it not the essential element of the Republican game plan to trap Barack Obama for a foreign policy failure.
Candy covered them both
The fact of the matter is that, not only did she correct Romney for attempting to stretch the point (where she herself had heard Obama say, “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”), but she also graciously acknowledged that it had taken the Obama administration two weeks to clarify whether or not public protests related to “Innocence of Muslims” had been a contributing factor.
Here is more about Romney and how the film was designed as an essential part of the plan of attack on Obama’s foreign policy:
Given the complexities of these events, that there would have been an absence of details about them should come as no surprise. What the Republicans are concealing and the press is not revealing is that the ambassador’s location was known to only a few, where locating him would have been virtually impossible without inside information.
Because money has no bounds for Romney’s supporters, who stand to benefit from the trillions in tax breaks he wants to impose, including eliminating taxes on capital gains and abolishing the estate tax, bribing a member of the ambassador’s staff would have been child’s play.
Romney’s initial criticism was issued within two minutes of Hillary Clinton’s announcement about the attack. How was that even possible, unless it had been contrived? It should be obvious that this very professional execution was carried out by highly-trained mercenaries or members of the Mossad.
Israel, after all, has a long history of “false flag” attacks, where this one would have been relatively simple by its own standards and past practices. And who would expect to have more to gain than Bibi Netanyahu, who would have virtually unrestricted access to the new president, were this gross deception to succeed?
But Candy threw a monkey wrench into the mix and defeated a complex and carefully orchestrated plan. We know from William Colby that the CIA owns everyone of significance in the major media, where it should come as no surprise that she is being so massively assailed from so many sources. A nice example is L. Brent Bozell, “Candy Crawley Self-Destructs”, who writes:
Just how badly did CNN’s Candy Crowley destroy her first (and hopefully last) attempt as a presidential debate moderator? More than 65 million people saw that she is to debate moderation as CNN is to “news.”
Barack Obama made a fatal mistake when he lied, claiming he’d labeled the Libya attack as an act of terrorism. The look on Romney’s face said it all: Mr. President, here comes checkmate.
Then Crowley leapt to Obama’s defense, declared a lie a truth, changed the subject, and Obama was free.
It was a travesty.
But it’s all a charade. Obama did not lie. The prevarications are all on the other side. Romney was asking a question for which she knew the answer. Unaware of any plot to impeach Obama’s Middle Eastern foreign policy and because of her dedication to journalism and truth, Candy Crowley extended a correction to the Republican candidate, when he appeared to be committing a mistake. She had been there at the time.
She had heard Obama speak. What she did not know was that this was part of a carefully contrived gambit to embarrass Obama and to strengthen Romney’s foreign policy image. If he could trash Obama for having lied about an important foreign policy issue, it would have been a coup for the GOP. It might even have swung the election in his favor. That was the plan. It didn’t work. But it wasn’t for lack of trying.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a frequent political commentator on radio and television programs.
- “Innocence of Muslims”, the GOP and World War III
- Bibi Cries, Obama Lies: What else is new?
- Sunday, September 23, 2012, False Flag Romney (CENSORED VIDEO)
- America, Seperate and Unequal
- Anti-Islam Film Triggers a Bloody 9/11 in Benghazi & Cairo (Updat
- Bozell Column: Candy Crowley Self-Destructs (newsbusters.org)
- Conservatives Have Category 5 Freak Out Over Debate, Call Candy Crowley a ‘Journalistic Terrorist’ [Master Debaters] (jezebel.com)
- Opinion: Crowley’s Obama Favoritism Completely Discredits Her As A Journalist (baltimore.cbslocal.com)
- Candy Crowley Embarrasses Herself, Falsely ‘Corrects’ Romney on Libya (newsbusters.org)
- Candy Crowley Self-Destructs (cnsnews.com)
- If Candy Crowley Was an Honorable Journalist She Would Resign Today From CNN (thegatewaypundit.com)
- Fox Graphic Sets Fire To An Image Of Candy Crowley (mediamatters.org)
- Krauthammer: Candy Crowley Was Essentially Incorrect and Contaminated the Argument (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
- MICKEY KAUS: Here’s Why Candy Crowley Was Out Of Line. “Crowley did not let viewers draw their own… (pjmedia.com)
- Creepy Crowley and the Cover-Up Kid! CNN and The Obama Administration – Weapons of Misdirection | The Last Refuge (amerikimpatriot.com)