In response to:

Obama Lied, Crowley’s Cred Died.

Ilene12 Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 5:27 AM
Candy Crowley should be fired immediately. She is not a journalist. She is strictly one sided and showed her one side at the second debate. Candy is a disgrace to journalism and should never have been a moderator. The Republican PArty President, Priebus, should never have allowed four liberal journalists to moderate. He is a shrub in the woods.
same10 Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 9:22 AM
would have had two liberals only.
Ginger12 Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 7:36 AM
I agree.....this was a set up.....she had the script in her hand...Obama knew she was going to jump in because he asked her to look at the did he know she had one? There is no low that this ineligible in chief will not drop into to keep his power and his 1.4 billion tax dollar vacations and travel....yes, that is what the king and his queen have spent of your money for their entertainment. We need people who are not biased doing this, far we have had three progressive liberals...and the fourth is coming up. When Romney was joking that his job was to create jobs and get America growing again, and the news medias job was to make sure no one ever gets to hear about it, was absolutely correct.
flip one over Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 7:53 AM
If you actually look at BO has got to GO reponses to the questions, You will start too realize that he had the questions before hand, He just is not that quick without his telepromter, nor is he that smart. He is nothing but a shill for the Soro's of the world.
volinva Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 8:32 AM
I think you are right. He is not that bright and certainly cannot think on his feet. That being said he seldom had anything other than a campaign speech for an answer. The presence of the transcript was strange but Obama asking for it showed that he isn't smart enough to be subtle. Anybody that thinks that was a coincidence is stupid.
Ron4594 Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 10:12 AM
Candy Crowley was his teleprompter. That's how he cheated.

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...