Tweet
One thing I’ve found remarkable about Mitt Romney throughout the campaign is his habit of telling small, easily provable lies. Almost all politicians tell the big lies, the type of vague promises that they will probably not be able to deliver on, but Romney often tells the lies which can easily be proven false.
He has done this repeatedly when talking about subjects ranging from the individual mandate and gun laws, but last night it finally caught up to him in a big way. Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack on our consulate in Libya an “act of terror” when in fact Obama did use the exact phrase the day after the attack. In front of a massive TV audience the debate moderator Candy Crowley pointed out that the entire basis for Romney answer to the question was simply not true.
This was not some surprise question that Romney merely misspoke about because he didn’t have all the details. The Romney campaign had been pushing this subject and should have fully expected a question about it. Romney prepared an answer to this question that he should have know was a complete lie.
One single moment in a debate will not move a whole election, but it can help feed a narrative that has been building for awhile. Obama is already viewed as significantly more honest and trustworthy than Romney. A Washington Post/ABC News poll already found slightly more voters think Romney is not honest than those who think he is. Having the moderator of a national debate public point out that Romney’s attack line is provably false can play a big role in reinforce an image of dishonesty.
If people don’t think they can trust a candidate on the little stuff, they are going to have a hard time trusting them on the big stuff. From his tax plan to his job promises, Romney is asking for a lot of trust from the Americans people because he is providing almost no details.
33 Comments
If people think Obama is credible or honest they either are on drugs or have been seriously hoodwinked by the MSM. But then Pinocchio himself would have looked honest compared to Romney.
Romney also lied about the binders of qualified women candidates. He didn’t request them.
Of course, he’s been lying, and lying, and lying, and no one seems to care. I long for a simpler day and age, when saying something that was true (you read an article that (incorrectly) said you were the inspiration for a character in the movie love story, and saying something that was arguably true — you were present at the creation of the internet — got you branded a serial liar in the mainstream media.
Ah, the good old days when words meant something. Long time gone.
Oh, goody, now I can hang my voter’s hat on which is the greater or lesser liar. I AM SO GRATEFUL.
Well, let me re-phrase that………..fuck both of them.
Doesn’t seem to faze Mitt’s base.
One of my right-wing friends posted on FB today, rejoicing as to how Team Obama is now 0 for 3 against Team Romney, Mitt having trounced the President last night.
Delusional.
Hello MR Walker, why don’t you write about Obama’s small lies too,my suggestion is that you began for one that is big: PUBLIC OPTION IN HEALTH CARE, no one remembers that one.
The exact phrasing Mr. O used is noted in this Guardian article today, since the substance of that T word was under dispute by the very principled Mr Romney:
In his Rose Garden speech Obama did use the phrase “acts of terror”, but he did so in the plural and within a general discourse on the threats facing the US rather than as a specific reference to Benghazi.
Candy Crowley takes heat from Republicans over Benghazi interjection
Moderator of the second debate criticised for fact-checking Romney on point about president’s remarks over Libya attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/candy-crowley-republicans-benghazi-interjection
This was political semantics at its best on display last evening.
Willard’s repeated dishonestly shows he is unprincipled and characterless.
Forgot to mention, if Willard hadn’t been so rude to the moderator she might not have called Willard out on his lies.
karma is a bitch.
How do you know he did not request them?
Oh, I remember.
Americans love dishonest liars and will always elect one when given a choice. That’s something that Mr. Jon Walker doesn’t seem to grasp: by spreading it around that Romney is a liar, he’s improving the odds that he’ll win. That explains how Obama got elected back in 2008 too by the way.
Let’s see. Whose lies about Benghazi were bigger and more persistent?
First, I read online, as it was happening, that our embassies in Libya and Egypt were under attack.
Then, Obama gave a speech saying that acts of terror would not prevail against us, or some such. Although he did not specifically say that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack, that was the fair implication of his words.
Then, I heard the attacks were motivated by a video. And we heard that and heard that and heard that.
The guy who made the video went into hiding. Then, authorities arrested him on a charge unrelated to the video.
And then, after a couple of weeks of stressing the video, people in government started telling the press that the video was not involved.
By the way, whether or not the video had anything to do with it, it was a terrorist attack. The video only went to a possibly motive for the terrorist attack. Whether the motive was a video or just generalized hatred against the US or something else does not change the nature of the attack. It goes only to motive.
Mitt Romney has said many things in this campaign that are untrue, but to hang your argument in this article on that Candy Crowley moment is crazy!
It’s President Obama that was lying, and Candy Crowley that covered up for him!
President Obama was not talking about the Benghazi attack on 9/12/2012 when he said “acts of terror” in the Rose garden. He was speaking in general about “Acts of Terror” a day after the 11 year anniversary of 9/11, referring to 9/11/2001 attacks as acts of terror.
I think Candy Crowley felt sorry for President Obama, because he didn’t answer the question, then he tried to act as if he was offended by anyone questioning him as to why he kept repeating to the Whole World that these attacks were caused by a man who made a movie trailer on youtube.
The more President Obama talks about Benghazi the worse it gets for him. . .
After the debate he stuck around to tell the person that asked that question that he didn’t say it was a terrorist attack, because he thought the intelligence reports might be wrong, so he wanted to wait until he was sure exactly what happened before he said anything. . . Again a total lie, because he said it was all about the video. Where did he get that false story from???
and why did it take 10 days for him to find out it was a totally false story??? They had real time communications with Benghazi before and during the attack, what more evidence do you need.
The only thing that makes sense is that President Obama refused to believe the evidence staring him in the face, and choose to apologize for us having the right of free speech!
Then he went about trying to arrest the Movie maker on any charge that could stick, luckily for President Obama this guy had a few outstanding warrants. . .
Do you remember they first just brought him in for questioning, then later they found out he was wanted on unrelated charges, so they arrested him. . . .
See part of transcript from the Rose Garden below:
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Well. . . I know it’s INCONVENIENT, but nobody seemed interested in the REST of Crowley’s response, which tended to AFFIRM Romney’s larger point. Obama was calling the CROWD ACTION terrorism, not identifying the murder as a carefully plotted act of terror.
As Crowley then went on to say, it DID take two weeks for this fact to come out. The crowd seemed more intent on pillorying Romney for his uncouth in trying to capitalize on the murder–circle the wagons, herd response, all that. Not necessarily the healthiest thing for democracy, right, even if Romney IS a putz? How many times have inconvenient truths been swept under the rug around here while we all saluted the flag?
Sorry, TELL ME WHY has this covered above. Meanwhile, WTF this site, sometimes all prog and oftimes so damned kissmearse tradDem? I know that Walker is with Pam Spaulding the biggest Obama homer here, but blogposts like this just really don’t pass muster.
I’m 61 years old and I have never seen a candidate of either party who was such a bad liar. As Jon says above, “…Romney often tells the lies which can easily be proven false.” That’s why his numbers are so poor and why he will lose the election.
I don’t know what you are smoking, but it would be better to stick to the facts that are presented and not what you might prefer instead:
Crowley told me she tried to clear up the question of how Obama had originally characterized the attack because “I was trying to move the conversation along. They got stuck on this.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-injects-herself-into-the-presidential-debate.html
It was the President who was lying, as Candy Crowley admitted shortly after the debate was over. And it wasn’t a small lie.
Well that is one of Romney’s best attributes so I can’t understand why you could suggest that he doesn’t have any principals.
You probably just don’t like him very much.
In the words of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, “Tell big lies because they are easier to remember.”
I guess Willard forgot that maxim.
Obama made a statement in the rose garden. He was saying if you kids think this is just fun and games in Bengazi and Cairo, forget it. We gomna get you fuckers. Four people were murdered. That is terrorism. Now if I’m wrong better tell me now or,don’t look up when you go out. Sounds appropriate to me.
Yes, but what can you expect from a tone deaf dumb ass?
Huh? Obama told the truth. Maybe Crowley doesn’t know what that is? Most MSM don’t.
Zingers (def.), Republican lies.
Hey, just updating the dictionary for “zingers,” especially after Boss Romney prepped so hard for the first debate, reportedly memorizing a bunch of “zingers.” Now we know. To Republicans, zingers equals lies, making them a bunch of right-zingers. And the right-wing zinging just never seems to stop. Romney’s and Ryan’s entire campaign is built on right-wing zinging, er, lying. The second debate was no different, zing after zing after zing, right-wing lie after right-wing lie after right-wing lie. And in the third debate we can expect the same. But what else is new? Faux News is the right-wing zinging, er, lying network, isn’t it?
Zinger!,
“Libya” was in the title of President Obama’s Rose Garden talk the day after the Benghazi consulate was attacked and four Americans died.
President Obama, in the talk, tied together the attack on 9/11/2001 and the attack the day before on 9/11/2012, thus, “acts of terror.”
And then after mentioning the deaths of the four Americans the day before in Benghazi, he said something like “terrible act.”
IOW, there is no doubt that President Obama equated the attack the day before as an “act of terror.”
Thus, Boss Romney flat-out lied, claiming that President Obama waited 14 days to call the attack an “act of terror.” (Is Boss Romney auditioning for a spot on Faux News after he loses the election?)
So much ado about who said what, meaning whatever, and when. No one paying any attention to the gorilla, the one thing that can’t be debated: Romney shot a wicked premature load on the night of the deadly attack, demonstrating quite clearly what a stone cold asshole he is.
Right, don’t like characterless, unprincipled liars like Willard.
And the worst part is the unprincipled, characterless Willard wants to be prez.
Two points:
1. For two weeks the Obama administration tried to cover up the fact that the attack was preplanned and had nothing to do with a protest over a video. We now know why: because the administration was warned that the security situation was deteriorating and denied requests to increase security for its diplomatic corps in Libya. I knew the administration was lying when I read just a few days after the attack that a guard that survived the attack said there was no protest of any kind when dozens of men with weapons suddenly showed up from all directions. The protest angle simply did not make sense given the intensity and nature of the attack.
2. Romney lied on the night of the attack when he said the Obama administration’s first response to the attack was to express sympathy with the attackers.
Actually, the American public, that public that is driven by superstition and ignorance think Mitt will work out just fine.
You are parroting a dishonest argument made by Republican partisans. The full transcript of his remarks is available online. Obama was in the Rose Garden to discuss the consulate attack. He did refer to the 9/11 attack, but in order to draw a connection between the two.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/16/replay-obamas-rose-garden-remarks-on-libya/
The relevant part:
Notice how the phrase “acts of terror” is not used until after returning to the subject of the Benghazi attack and after making a link between it and the 9/11 attacks. Secondly, he uses the phrase “this terrible act” to refer to the Benghazi attack to include it as an act of terror in the same paragraph.
It is clear to any sensible person that he was calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror.
The President has two real problemns here:
1. He referred to acts of terror on 9/12 but made his staff claim the exact opposite for two weeks. As an aside, Ambassador Rice has probably killed any chance for any higher office that must be confirmed by the Senate. There is a cost to her kind of statement.
2. Four Americans are dead because of lax security at the consulate. No matter how you cut the cake, the administration bears responsibility for that.
I think that the President is vulnerable on his overall policy towards the world from Tunisia to Pakistan.