| Matthew A. wrote at 10:13 AM on May-21-2013: |
| Regarding Candi Crowley agreeing with Obama when he lied about calling the Benghazi attack "terror" from the beginning - Larry, this was what us old prosecutors call a "tip-off." (Interesting, the concept is similar to what the IRS did with their "planned question.) Before the debate, someone on the Obama side "tipped" Crowley that if asked about when he first called it "terrorism," Obama would point to his comments in the Rose Garden when he spoke generally about defeating terror. Crowley bit or (more likely) conspired in the lie. Recall, Crowley reacted IMMEDIATELY to Obama's assertion that he said it was terrorism from the start. There is no logical way for Crowley to connect the Rose Garden comment to this answer unless she was "tipped" before the debate. This is a classic "tip off" where a witness (or questioner)is given "inside information" in order to shade their opinion. Clearly, Crowley was directed to the Rose Garden comments. Her desire to protect Obama and support his narrative was too powerful to resist. So she ignored logic - and any journalistic objectivity - and cut off Romney's inquiry. As you've reported, it was a key moment in the debate and could have been an opening to the truth. Crowley should be asked if anyone mentioned the Rose Garden comment before the debate. If she could summon honesty (doubtful), we would discover that, indeed, there was a "tip-off" here that worked to perfection. Matthew A. |
