Presidential Debate- P2

Last night Presidential debate was what it was billed to be.
Romney being Romney, but Obama will do better then his last debate.
And, admittingly, Obama did do better.... in his attacks.
On substance from the President, nothing new there.
Romney slammed the President on the economy, energy policy, tax policy, and so on.

What this post will be about is the part of the debate where Candy Crowley asserted herself in to this debate, with regards to the Benghazi topic of the debate.

First, some of Obama remarks of the attack:

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again....

The President pretty much admitted that security was not sufficient, and two, "investigate exactly what happen, regardless of where the facts lead us." ???
Is the President saying investigate, but disregard facts, and hold them accountable? Seems so.

Romney then stepped up, to address this issue.

The president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance 

Obama's rebuttal:

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. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. 

Problem with this statement by the President is twofold. First Romney never said "Secretary of State", nor "UN ambassador" played politics. He said the President did. "That's not what I do as President" Well Mr. President... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID!

Romney's turn, and here is where is gets interesting.

Romney: I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration? 

Obama: Please proceed.
Romney:  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: Get the transcript.

 OK, I did:

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.

Now mind you Romney was right, the President didn't call THIS attack an act of terror.

Ms Crowley asserted in to this discussion by saying:

He did call it an act of terror.

But later the moderator corrected herself on CNN... Well sort of:

I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

These acts of terror vs No acts of terror..... 'Or whatever the whole quote was'.

The problem was she asserted herself in to this back and forth without "being up on it" and having the facts.

Liberals Latest Lunatic Idea

Now here is one of the most lunatic ideas to come out by the liberal left, since…. I don’t EVEN know when.

Move On.Org is now circulating a online petition to demand the News Networks that will host the Presidential Debates have a…. ready for this… fact checker in the panel.

Yep, I told you is was lunatic idea.

From Move On:

Dear MoveOn member,

Whenever I see a political ad or hear a politician speak, I'm (1) angry because I know it is a lie, (2) confused because I am not sure, or (3) pleased because I assume that my preferred candidates are speaking the truth.
Voters must be given the truth before they can make decisions that are in their own best interests and that of our country. That's why I created a petition on SignOn.org to the Commission on Presidential Debates and the major TV networks, which says:

Have unbiased fact checkers at the presidential and vice presidential debates so that voters can base their decisions on facts rather than rhetoric.

As a mother of 6 and a grandmother of 13, I would like to leave the world a better place for the next generations. Voting the right people into office is certainly a part of this.

Thanks!
–Vicki Meyer

There you have it.

What is the real motivation? What good would it do to have a fact checker there? To stop the debates and correct the candidate?

So what will this do?

Fact Checkers review what’s been said and then RESEARCH facts before compare them to what’s been said and supposedly set the record straight. That takes time to check. More than just a few minutes or hours.

Well guess what? Fact checkers don’t always get it right, either.

The debates will be televised on ABC, CBS, PBS and CNN. The majority of these so called “News Networks” are, and have been proven bias.

So what good would it do? Most likely, if it’s Move On.Org setting this in place, these fact checkers will be in the tank for the liberal left, anyways.

BTW, to Ms. Meyer, I’d like to leave to my posterity the Free and Prosperous nation I was born in to!

Most Americans, I would say, would agree.