Though I am fond of checking the “Fact Check” articles of the mainstream media, which themselves often are false if not outright lies, we will present a preliminary basic Fact Check on the major issues in the Second Presidential Debate of 2012.
Many of the same points were covered which we covered in our First Fact Check series, and both candidates seemed to double down on their positions, Romney adding more detail on some issues, and Obama mostly repeating the same lies.
The debate started off as strong for Romney, and quite week for Obama. Obama was nervous, had little control of the dialogue, and instead of coming out “swinging” as we were told, had to back off to a more aggressive Romney who expected this new more energetic Obama.
Romney polished some of the points he had made in the first debate, and had a greater amount of detail in deriding some of Obama’s misleading or false statements (such as 5 million new jobs, and Oil Output is up etc). However, something happened midway into the debate where Obama seemed to take the edge.
Though much will be made of his performance in the media, and improvement over the first debate, the truth is that he was very similar. It is true that he seemed to calm down a bit and counter some arguments effectively, but what really changed was Romney’s performance rather than Obama’s.
For some reason, Romney seemed to lose it in the last part of the debate, stuttering, being overly aggressive and unfocused. The critical moment where this seemed to spiral downward for Romney was actually a tag-team by the moderator and Obama on Romney.
Obama Claim he called the Benghazi attack terrorism from day 2
Candy Crowley must be severely chastised for unabashedly taking Obama’s side in a most critical part of the debate, that not only began Romney’s downward spiral but also gave Obama his only real positive “moment” for video clip consumption. Romney quite appropriately leveled criticism at the administration’s lack of truthfulness about the Benghazi attacks. He said:
It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration….
This was part of a much longer point with very good issues being pointed out by Governor Romney, that of course were ignored by Obama and the moderator. Obama was able to feign being outraged at the implication of politics, and appear Presidential, forceful and above political pettiness If is of course false on its face since we know that this administration consistently admits to making political decisions on these issues to not “offend” the Islamic world; it cancelled the “War on Terror”, dropped the term “terrorism and terrorist” from State Department vernacular, and in fact refused to have adequate security forces in Benghazi in order to “normalize” relations and not seem aggressive or occupying (how a force guarding a nation’s embassy can appear to be “occupying” a whole country is beyond comprehension). However, Obama indignantly said:
The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime….And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.
Romney was correct that this could not be left to stand. Firstly, Romney did not suggest or accuse, he begged the question which is entirely appropriate. It is difficult to understand how the world’s superpower could not know for 7 days what everyone else in the world (including the US personnel who survived the consulate attack) knew. There never was a demonstration about a video nor about anything else, it was a highly coordinated and lethal armed assault on the consulate by terrorists. The question is most appropriate, because if Obama was not playing politics, then as Romney should have answered is…
I understand Mr. President, you would never do something like that, and I do not suggest it, it merely was gross incompetence.
Romney no doubt was getting to something like this when he began by attacking Obama’s first assertion, that he had indeed called it an act of terror the very next day.
I think interesting the president just said something which – which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
Obama affirmed, was pressed further by Romney, and after some back and forth between all three of them, Crowley shockingly said that in fact Obama did call it an act of terror, which was followed by applause by some in the crowd. This left Romney stunned, ruined the rest of his point on the matter, and he never recovered thereafter.
Besides the fact that Candy throwing her weight behind one of the candidates in such an argument is shocking and unprofessional; it unfortunately had a massive effect on the debate outcome and possibly will have one in the election. This was a blatant abuse of the agreed upon rules of the debate, and the election process. Perhaps worse than all of that, is that Candy Crowley was completely incorrect as well. But being the moderator and a woman, she put Romney in a very difficult position if he intended to start debating both of them. She also apparently has documents and communication devices available to her which the candidates do not.
It is abundantly clear the administration took great pains to continue to push the narrative that the attack was a protest due to a video that got out of hand. At most the idea was floated around that extremist and opportunistic elements took advantage of the protest to hijack it or at least strike from within it with heavier weapons. In our article covering the events, I covered some of the contradicting statements from the administration.
Ultimately it was so clear that the information coming out was not right, that I in fact wrote that we shall have to wait for the follow-up article because it was clear to me the information out of the State Department and White House was not making sense. However, at the time we still had no independent source of information (as we do now) to verify the truth. This follow-up is being completed only now. The shameful revelations coming from the Congressional hearing into the events which leave any viewer with little choice but to believe the Administration intentionally lied.
In any event, the administration itself now admits to have been wrong for at least the first 5-7 days (different parts of the administration admitting it at different times). They have simply said that their information was wrong at the time, and they were simply relaying what the “Intelligence Community” was telling them. Who told them what and when of course, remains classified so the intelligence community is an easy scapegoat to throw under the bus. But the media, the administration, and the GOP are all agreement NOW in the following facts:
- The Administration and the State Dept continued to claim for the first 5 days at least that the attack was not pre-planned but rather due to anger over a video offensive to Islam.[break]break]
- The Administration and the State Department were wrong, and it is now clear there was no protest or demonstration at all at the consulate, but that rather a pre-planned coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 is what took place in Benghazi.
So if this is the case, what was Obama’s whole point about calling the attack a terrorist attack on Sept 12? Pure fantasy.
First, note that even in the debate tonight Obama recalled that he told the American people that he was going to “hunt down those that committed this crime”. It is exactly as that, a crime, and not a terrorist act nor terrorism, that Obama characterized the attack on Sept 12. Let’s look at his remarks at the Rose Garden on Sept 12 2012 from his very own website.
And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
In the beginning of his remarks, he calls the terrorists simple “killers” and also condemns the video which he is blaming for the attack. Near the end of his remarks, he says:
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.
Notice that he is speaking in general, and not at all characterizing this specific event. This is why to begin with, he mentions “acts” and not “act”. Immediately following when again promises to seek justice for this “terrible act”. Throughout the remarks, he refers to the terrorists as “killers” and “attackers”, and he refers to the act as a “crime” and a “terrible act” but never as “terrorism” or “terrorists”.
In 801 words, he mentions “terror” only once, in the above closing parts of his remarks when speaking about America’s values and in general terms about “acts” and not this specific one. He specifically and not generally mentions both the terrorists and the terrorist act several times, and never calls them either of that. Furthermore, in this speech like in many others given by the administration, he specifically condemns denigrating religious beliefs. Islamists do not denigrate religious beliefs of non believers, they kill them.
Obama was referring to that video and laying blame there instead of at his own doorstep. It is he who supported the Islamist takeover of Libya, it is he who ordered thousands of Libyan soldiers loyal to their government bombed to bits, culminating in a mob lynching of Gaddafi and his son (not very different from what unfortunately befell Ambassador Stevens). And worse of all, after doing that it is he who kept Christopher Stevens and his staff starved of the security forces they demanded (and were generously offered by General Ham at no cost to the State Dept and with no strings attached as we learn in the Committee Hearing) so that they can fall like sheep thrown to the wolves.
For Obama to stand “offended” is an offence in itself. For him to have been backed by the moderator so inappropriately is insult upon injury.
As a final point of evidence for those who may wish to split hairs. “Terror” and “terrorism/”terrorists” are not the same. Obama (fortunately for him) used the word terror in its broad sense… terror is very similar to horror. Any number of lethal and bloody acts are filled with terror and horror. That is simply an adjective describing great fear, in these cases inflicted by violent death.
Terrorism (like communism or any other ism) is a political tactic, practiced of course, by terrorists. They use the everyday “terror” that may not necessarily be from terrorism and terrorists as a tool to achieve their political or religious goals. Whereas one can feel terror simply by being trapped in a burning building, it does not follow he was a necessarily victim of terrorism. Undoubtedly terrorists acts are sometimes called “acts of terror” and the two terms sometimes are used (or misused) interchangeably, but most definitely not always.
There was no doubt that the murder of Ambassador Stevens and his three fellow Americans was full of terror. The question was if it was an act of terrorism, pre-planned and committed by terrorists, or a “spontaneous” lynching of a mob offended by a video as Obama claimed. This is what Romney was referring to specifically, and he was most correct in his criticism and questioning. The accusations are very serious, and can only be answered by either intentional lying or gross incompetence (neither would surprise me from the Obama administration). To ignore all of that, and have an entire debate turn, with the help of the moderator, because of the word “terror” in one 801 word speech by Obama is a brutal shame.
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
Early on int the debate, Obama attacked Romney for wanting to let “Detroit go Bankrupt” when referring to the Auto Industry.
Now when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt. I said we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry and it’s come surging back.
He also said that now Detroit was thriving because he did not follow that plan. Romney countered with:
…which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and Colgan [Pinnacle] Airlines and come out stronger.
And I know he keeps saying, you want to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors
bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did.
And I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could
start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.
Romney’s remarks are right on the ball. You may disagree with whether letting GM and Chrysler simply go bankrupt was the right policy or not, but Romney’s statements are factual. That is in fact what he advocated from the start, and it is what eventually happened anyways, though after a failed government bailout which Romney should have mentioned.
Obama’s statement on the other fact is dubious and misleading. Firstly, though it is no point of pride to me, the Auto bailout was worked out by the Bush administration and Congress and scheduled to be executed by the next administration, Obama simply inherited it. He failed to mention this. However, once he did inherit it and expand it, he continued to believe he could save Detroit auto industry, and never stated (before distributing the funds) that the desired effect was to go to bankruptcy anyways, like he implied in today’s debate. Quite the opposite, the entire point of the bailout was to avoid bankruptcy, which is why he was in disagreement with Romney to begin with.
Eventually, the bailout was not enough and both GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. It is true that both emerged stronger after the bankruptcy, and Obama failed to mention that to date, the government is still in the red $1 billion for the Chrysler bailout and $27 billion for the GM bailout.
23 Million People Struggling for Work
Romney reiterated this point made previously in the first debate. The “Fact Checks” then ran wild claiming this was false. We claimed it was accurate, as it is, and today there was silence on the issue.
Oil and Energy
Obama again claimed that oil and gas production were way up during his term:
We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years.
Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades…
…And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling
on federal lands, and in federal waters.
So where’d the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there?
The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And
what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.
As far as Federal production and licencing being down in Federal lands, Romney was right on, as we covered in the first debate Fact Check. It is telling that Obama came right back with the same misleading statement, showing how little truth can matter in these debates. However, Romney did have new information. Not only were the increases not due to his policies, but despite his policies. Obama’s administration brought criminal action against people drilling in North Dakota.
The facts are also fairly accurate. Seven companies were arraigned in court with criminal charges brought on by the psychopaths at the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Obama’s Department of Justice, took Fish and Wildlife’s case and brought on the Federal Charges. The companies were not simply fined, but literally charged with criminally “taking” wildlife under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This is because some birds, (in the range of 20-30 in total) mostly ducks and non endangered, were found dead in oil pits. Obviously, as Romney stated for the amount of wealth, energy and jobs that have recently come out of North Dakota from these massive operations, a handful of dead ducks does not seem like that big a cost.
But worse than that, fining the companies would be one thing, and requiring them to take some extra precautions around pits to avoid further deaths would perhaps also be reasonable, but charging them criminally as poachers is insane. Early one, it seems one company took a plea-bargain and pleaded guilty. The others fought on in court and sane federal judges in the US District Court Of North Dakota threw out the cases. Obviously, there was no criminal intention here nor poaching. Not only proof of the Obama’s administrations values (or lack-thereof) but also the ignorant of the law the Department of Justice under the allegedly brilliant lawyer Obama can be. Under these types statists, the constitution and its protections of liberties mean nothing.
Not to leave those animal lovers among you in defiance, here are some statistics from the same degenerates at the US Fish and Wildlife about bird deaths.
Birds crashing into Windows: 100 million killed
- Communication towers: 5 million to 50 million killed
- Power lines: 10,000 to 174 million
- Cars: 60 million
- Aircraft: millions
- Wind turbines: 33,000
From other sources:
Pesticides kill 72 million birds per year
Cats kill hundreds of millions annually. The state of Wisconsin alone estimated 39 million birds killed per year by cats within its borders.
So where are the federal charges against people who have windows? Solar Panels? Wind Turbines? Cars? Cats? But 20 to 30 birds unintentionally while providing much needed energy and jobs to the country.. Off to Jail.
More to follow….