by
John Nolte
We're done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete setup to rehabilitate Barack Obama.
If these are truly undecided voters, they're apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party .
Moreover, as I write this, Obama's already enjoyed four more minutes of
speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that's a big deal .
The
lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley's disgraceful "moderation"
was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama's side when
the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration's
lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a
spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as
cover the claim that he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" on
that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.
Romney correctly disputed that.
Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama's side and the crowd exploded.
Here's what Obama said that day:
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.
Context
matters and the context here is that Obama connected this "act of
terror" to … a mob action over a YouTube video -- not a deliberate
terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be
almost two weeks before he used it again.
Let's not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror.
And
during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For
Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is
at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this
debate has only begun.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
ON BREITBART TV
No comments:
Post a Comment