Phony Indignation Won't Get Obama Off Libya Hook in Next Debate

by John Nolte 

What we saw in the second presidential debate when it came to questions surrounding the security failures in Libya and the subsequent cover up, is that President Obama answered neither. Obama talked around the security issue and then when Romney hit him on the Libya cover up Obama pulled The Indignation Card. 

 

Well, I never! How dare you! My God man, have you no decency! People are dead!

Let's just say that if Obama wore pearls he'd have gripped them.

Admittedly, thanks to a huge assist from The Corrupt Candy Crowley, all that phony indignation got Obama through the night. But will it get him through the next debate and the rest of the election?

If the corrupt media has anything to say about it, of course it will. But for ninety-minutes this coming Monday night (if debate moderator Bob Schieffer doesn't pull a "Candy"), Romney will have an unfiltered opportunity to finally give this smoldering cover up the full vetting it deserves.

Judging from Paul Ryan's comments earlier this morning with Milwaukee radio talk-show host Charlie Sykes, that's exactly what Romney intends to do:

"They refuse to answer the basic questions about what happened," Ryan said. "And so his response has been inconsistent, it's been misleading. And more than a month later we still have more questions than answers."

The Wisconsin congressman said he hopes a congressional investigation and Monday night's presidential debate, with its focus on foreign policy, will provide answers.

"That's why you have these investigations in Congress, to find out what exactly happened and why the stonewalling and why blaming (the) YouTube video for two weeks," he said. "The reason we need to get to the bottom of this is so we can prevent something like this from happening again."

Compounding Obama's Libya problems is a bombshell report released this morning that proves once and for all, that within 24 hours of the Libya attack, our CIA told Washington the evidence pointed to a terror attack, not a spontaneous demonstration gone bad:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.

This isn’t exactly news in the general sense, but as Ed Morrissey points out, this is "the most specific reporting yet, and the first reporting of which I’m aware that the CIA station chief cabled Washington with that information himself."

Looks like Obama might need a second set of pearls.

And naturally, the corrupt media's completely ignoring this revelation today in favor of "Binders: Day Three."

Romney's no shrinking violet, though, and it's going to take more than phony indignation and a corrupt moderator to stop the truth from coming out in Monday night's foreign policy debate.