Candy Crowley Apologizes for Romney Interruption

Bill Hitchcock October 17, 2012 13
Candy Crowley Apologizes for Romney Interruption



The fear that Candy Crowley would interject herself into the second presidential debate became a reality. Last night during the town hall meeting between President Obama and Governor Romney Crowley would interrupt Romney and come to the defense of Obama during the subject of the attack on the US embassy in Libya.

When Mitt Romney said, “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama quipped to Romney, “Get the transcript”

Candy Crowley jumped to Obama’s defense and insisted that the President called it, “act of terror.”

“There was also applause when Crowley suggested that it took others in the administration as much as two weeks to abandon the idea that the attacks were related to protests over an anti-Islam video,” according to Yahoo News

Watch Crowley try to explain herself on CNN. Post your comments and thoughts below.

Read and watch all of the current and archived NEWS and POLITICS here at Live and Local ENC with Bill Hitchcock


13 Comments »

  1. Steve October 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM - Reply

    Candy was WRONG. Did she say she was wrong? NO…She gives her self credit for also agreeing with Romney. She should be FIRED!!

  2. Cornelius Hubbard Sr. October 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM - Reply

    Candy was right and should not apologize for stopping MIT’s lies!!

  3. Phyllis October 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM - Reply

    Candy was WRONG. She sided with Obama who was being dishonest. They were both WRONG.

  4. Blake October 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM - Reply

    She was out of line, whether she was right or wrong. It is not the moderator’s job to argue/correct the candidates. Her job is to make sure the rules are followed and that the debate is controlled.

    She has no business interrupt either candidate for any reason that does not involve “We are running out of time and need to move on.”

  5. JP Kimball October 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM - Reply

    How much plainer could “act of terror be”. He said it. Candy verified it, so what’s the problem.

  6. Dottie Gammon October 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM - Reply

    Shocking that Candy inserted herself into the debate & confirming Obama’s incorrect spin. Have thought her to be less partisan than here collegues. She blew it!

  7. AJ Cohleric October 18, 2012 at 7:38 AM - Reply

    It’s very sad that those who oppose Pres. Obama will spin anything they possibly can to make him look bad and to make Mitt Romney look good.

    President Obama was NOT being dishonest; he stated, “these acts of terror.” That is what he stated during the debate and that is what he stated during the press conference in the Rose Garden. Mitt Romney stated that it took President Obama 14 days to state it was an act of terror. Given these facts, President Obama was CORRECT and HONEST in his words to the American people during the debate; he acknowledged them as acts of terror…so, I do not understand how ppl are saying he was dishonest? Comprehend much? Candy did not say, “Oh, I apologize; Mitt Romney was correct, President Obama did not say that…” No, she said that Mitt Romney was HALF correct. 1) He was INCORRECT when stating that President Obama did not acknowledge the act as an act of terror; and 2) He was CORRECT that it took the Obama Administration 14 days to acknowledge the acts were in protest to the video…” These are two distinct differences.

    Mitt Romney disregarded that statement, and lumped Pres. Obama in a group with his administration, who later (14 days or so) confirmed it was an act of terroism in response to the video. That is unfair, and untrue.

    But at the end of the day, why is this even a matter of discussion? Was she (Candy) wrong for chiming in and correcting Mitt Romney? Perhaps, but Mitt Romney had an agenda during that debate, and the topic of discussion should be his level of disrespect to the moderator, the President, and the audience.

    I see people commenting that she should not have interrupted either candidate, but I find that absurd. Mitt Romney came out the gate with his rude and disrespectful behavior, never-minding the rules of the debate, taking as much time as he wanted to answer questions, ignoring his time, talking over the moderator and President, and disregarding questions, especially if he wanted to continue on a separate topic.

    Ignoring race for a moment (as I am sure the color of President Obama’s skin plays a larger role in the dislike and disrespect shown toward him), ignoring political parties–does America really want a Commander and Chief who does not follow the rules, plays by his own, is openly disrespectful, and not-very presidential? At all times, I expect the President of the United States to remain in character, maintain his professionalism, tact, maintain a respectful demeanor–he should not be taunting and challenging–politics aside, that guy is NOT Mitt Romney. I’d rather McCain run again…

  8. LC W October 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM - Reply

    AJ you are completely backwards, it took obama 14 days to admit the acts WERE NOT in protest to a video, they were planned attacks that had nothing to do with a video. September 20th Obama was interviewed and STILL blaming the video when our government knew well in advance it was a preplanned act of terrorism that had nothing to do with something on YOUTUBE. He’s either clueless or a liar, the information about a preplanned attack was out within 24 hours.

    September 20 Town Halls speech transcript:
    OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.

    And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

  9. tom cole October 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM - Reply

    concerning candy’s request for Mr Romney to explain,, since she and others felt the Republicans
    were largely to blame for the situation, to explain how he would deferentiate himself to Bush. I though this was Romney vs the Presidents policies. A proper response would have been that while he would give both the current and prior presidents credit for acting as they did as they saw it in the interest of the country, right or wrong. The current debate does not involve George Bush

  10. Karen October 18, 2012 at 7:19 PM - Reply

    Candy did an excellent job She didn’t side with the President, merely set the record straight.

  11. klee October 19, 2012 at 12:29 PM - Reply

    1. April 6 – September 8: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
    a. Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.
    b. Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.
    c. Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.
    d. British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.
    e. The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.
    f. Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.
    g. A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”
    h. A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.
    i. The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.
    j. Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.
    2. A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.
    3. September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.
    4. September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are attacked and killed by terrorists
    5. September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

    6. September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

    7. September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

    8. September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

    9. September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

    10. September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

    11. September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

    12. September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

    13. September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.

    14. September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

    15. September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

    16. September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

    17. September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

    18. September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

    19. September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

    20. September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

    21. September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

    22. September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

    23. September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.

    24. October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation

    25. Oct. 3: FBI investigators finally arrive at the crime scene in Benghazi, which has been unsecured for weeks.

    26. Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”

    27. Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.

    28. Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

    29. Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”

    30. Oct. 12: After Republicans pounce, the White House says Biden was speaking for himself and the president because such decisions are made by the State Department.

  12. klee October 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM - Reply

    there is a recap of what happened AFTER THE TERROR act took place A BLOW BY BLOW, so the president in paragraph I think 7 of his speech is when he said if this was an act of terror they would get to the bottom of it, NOT THAT IT WAS A TERROR ATTACK, the also said when you watch the speech in the rose garden PEOPLE TAKE THEIR OWN INTURPITATION OF IT, and mine was they blamed it on a VIDEO…

  13. L. Rogue October 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM - Reply

    Crowley was wrong. No doubt. She was incorrect in her interruption and helping Obama. Obama, Rice, Clinton, and Jay lied for 2 weeks blaming a video made by an American that Obama had arrested and called a “shady character”. Lies. That’s all we are hearing.

Leave A Response »