In response to:

Obama Lied, Crowley’s Cred Died.

Account closed Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 2:20 PM
Sure, it was all outrageous, but Mitchell, you have overlooked the most important feature of the entire incident: Candy Crowley and Barack Obama colluded to fix an American presidential election on national TV. Obama would not taken such a calculated risk if he wasn't trailing Romney. Even then, it wouldn't have been worth it, if there hadn't been a way for him to get some immediate impact, i.e., make Romney look bad. Maybe, his campaign thought, they could pick up ten thousand votes in a key state. But there was only one way to do that: take the unprecedented step of having a debate participant ask the moderator to produce a "transcript" that "confirmed" that Obama wasn't lying. Leave a lasting impression on millions who may watch any mor
Account closed Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 2:32 PM
more debates.

So O called for confirmation and lo and behold, there it was right at her fingertips. She even found the exact quote within a second or two. How amazing.

This is at least the second time in this election we've seen the administration create a "plausible deniability" scenario - something lawyers specialize in. But we know what happened. and I'm pretty sure that to think this was all a coincidence is to suspend disbelief.

Not being a lawyer, I still have to believe that we saw enough for the next AG to launch a full investigation of Candy and CNN's CEO.

President Obama’s lie at the debate--that he made an early call the Benghazi attack was terror-- was petty and ludicrous.

It was petty because, as a semantic dispute, it grasped brief advantage that necessarily had to yield to inevitable fact-checking. It was ludicrous because, as a matter of history, it pretended two weeks of vehement, contradictory spin from the administration never happened.

When Mitt Romney challenged Obama on his failure to admit the Benghazi massacre was terrorism, the president threw down a startling gauntlet: He had indeed called the attack an act...