I also like how when the president realized he had nowhere to run, he tried to take the subject away from foreign policy.

Working poor. That bill was bi-partisan. In fact more democrats voted for it than Republicans. Nice try, but that argument burned out a long time ago.

workingpoor-2370498 -- so you're saying that Ryan, and Ryan alone was responsible for the lack of funds for security... however... the truth is that the budget for embassies security has actually risen.. so your ignorant comment that it's increased.. the real fault lies in the obama administration denying embassies added security ...

and here's the link in case you're wondering ....

Ya. No act of Terror in general. He didn't say the attack in Libya was an act of terror. For days he stood by the argument that it was caused by the video. That's the point, Backhouse.

Candy Crowley now says: "Romney Was Actually Right on Libya"

.

watch video:

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/cnns_candy_crowley_romney_was_actually_right_on_libya.html

sorry.. here is the full quote

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."

I've been bothered by the Benghazi attacks since they happened. I watched the President's speech on 9/12 and while he frequently called the people "attackers" he never called them "terrorist". He did say, "No acts of terror will shake this land" (something like that). President Obama's staff has been all over the place with this horrible and sad incident. It was a terrorist attack, it was just an uprising that got out of control from a Video, it was a terrorist attack, but we aren't quite sure, VP Biden saying that the Oval office knows nothing about security request in hostile areas, which goes against the testimony in Congress. Secretary Clinton having to step up and say "I am responsible for this failure." (Nothing wrong there Hiliary). But then 1 hour before the final debate, President Obama comes out and says No, no, no...I'm responsible...the buck stops here.

Why can't you, The President, simply say Americans have died, we aren't sure at this moment what happened. We are working every moment to get a clear and concise understanding of the last few days so that we can proceed. We mourn the loss of our fellow Americans.

Instead it had to be, we will hunt you down and you will pay! President Obama sounds like a gun slinger.

The cult leader lost.

CNN POLL

Poll: This is it: Who won?

Obama by a lot (48%)

Romney by a lot (19%)

Obama by a little (16%)

Romney by a little (18%)

Sure a CNN poll just a few hours after the debate. Most Republicans are in bed now because they have to go to work tomorrow. Too early, let things sink in. Dems, so desperate for a victory.

"...that's not what I do as commander in chief."

What a perfect chance, handed to Romney to ask "Well on that note, what exactly...." But he passed on it, but Romney won the debate. A debate in which one of the people currently holds the office in which he is defending and trying to convince undecided voters that he should be elected, is not much different than a sporting event in which a team or person is the current champion. The Champ has to not only win, but completely overwhelm the challenger in order to show who the Champ is and why. Haven't seen that yet. a 'Close' debate goes to the challenger in reality...it always has. It also usually wins over the undecided. The undecided is all the debates are really for anyhow.

An Independent Thinker Why can't obama acknowledge that extra security had been all but begged for by security officials but they were told that the local Libyans could provide it? They asked many times and were repeatedly denied...read the MSNBC from yesterday about Hillary and you will see it.

In addition to it being Tripoli, not Benghazi, which asked for more security, Benghazi was told they really did need more security but Stevens declined to accept it.

Act of terrorism or spontaneous demonstration that lead to 4 American deaths...is that really the question? No, the question should be what do we need to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Let's assume that this was indeed about the You Tube video, and as a result there was a period of demonstration, which, and let's assume, that the terrorists used this period of demonstration as a distraction to carry out their terrorist act. Then one would have to conclude that without the demonstration, the attack on the embassy would most likely not have happened.

There are going to be intelligence failures. Should I remind everyone of 9/11/01? There are going to be questions with no clear answers. There are going to be suppositions; assumptions. Until the investigation is 100% complete and the all facts are completely known, all we have is assumptions.

For Romney to assume that President Obama would have a clear picture of exactly what happened less than 24 hours after the fact, shows complete ignorance of the investigatory process.

For Romney to assume that if you added more personnel to the equation that it would have prevented an attack...then I got news for you, adding more personnel would have given the terrorist (with a bomb) a bigger target. Instead of 4 dead, would could have had at least a hundred dead. If you need proof, just look at the U.S.S. Cole, or the two embassy's in Africa, or WTC.

Romney didn't and still doesn't have all of the facts and he won't because he doesn't have access to the intelligence data. All he has is a second hand account, via premature press releases and State Department announcements of what may or may not have occurred. If the Administration wasn't entirely sure of what was going on, what makes Romney believe that he is the authority on actionable intelligence matters and has all the information needed in order to criticize the Administrations foreign policy decisions or conclusions? HE DOESN'T.

As far as Romney winning the debate. You can NOT lie, or flip flop on issues, in order to secure the vote from your base, and still try to influence the undecided vote. Romney has lied so often now, that many undecideds are actually starting to believe his lies and position reversals. What Romney did tonight was show exactly how unprofessional and disrespectful he is and that he believes he is entitled to do whatever he wishes. He has no referendum because on party lines, this country is split. If he would start telling the truth, we would see that this election on November 6th, would be a landslide for Obama because every undecided, who has a brain, would know that Obama has put this country back on track. I'm not saying that the economy is completely repaired and viable, but given more time, the foundation will have solidified and the U.S. will be better because it now has a solid footing to grow on.

If you are a true "undecided", then you need to start asking Romney for specifics. Grill him until you are 100% convinced, that his policies will not harm the economy, that his policies will strengthen the middle class, that he has a plan for comprehensive reform that introduces the right amount of taxation, with the right amount of cuts, without burdening hard working Americans. What Romney has shown us so far, is a that he is indecisive, and incapable of telling the truth. That is not what I want in a President and that is not what this country needs.

“Transcript:

"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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Reading comprehension 101: what do you think to what "act " in the last line refers to??”

The headline to this article has it right. There IS much more to the Benghazi attack than is apparent on the surface. For the first few weeks following the attack, the Obama administration confidently stated over and over and over that it was about a Youtube video. Consider the fact that there was no timeliness to the supposed reaction by the Muslim world to the video. Not only had this particular ridiculously-produced video had been on Youtube for months prior to the fateful September 11 attack, if you really care to know, you may discover that at any given time there are myriad such videos on Youtube, and have been for years. Not only is the Youtube video "explanation" ridiculous, if you think about its use by both the Muslim radicals AND the Obama admonition, you realize that this is a case of the Muslim terrorists having purposely searched Youtube for such a video PRIOR to their act of terror for the express purpose of catering to a bizarre psychological weakness that these terrorists shrewdly detect in the President of the United States.

The anti-American violence in the Muslim world is tragically facilitated by Obama's psychology. For whatever reason, Barack Obama feels an unnatural compulsion to protect Islam from perceived "insults". We saw this in his attempts to intercede on behalf of the planners of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" near the site of what was the World Trade Center, and we see it in the many comments he has made to the Islamic world and to Americans. Unfortunately, those Islamic leaders intent on harming us are smarter than we generally think they are, and they have shrewdly developed strategies to utilize Obama's emotional vulnerability for this purpose, thus they invented the Youtube video pretext specifically to appeal to Obama's vulnerability and Obama himself is unfortunately only too eager to be played in this manner. The denial of necessary security to the Benghazi compound is directly related to this "Obama Doctrine", which is intent on convincing the world that America trusts the good intentions of Islam.

There's no doubt in my mind that Obama is doing this because he has the good intentions of promoting one of the world's major religions (Islam) as benevolent. He himself is not a Muslim, but he has this psychological need. In the process of acting upon his "good intentions", his doctrine makes Americans vulnerable, and he mounts a bizarre cover-up to the September 11 Islamic celebratory attacks against Americans. We haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg on this. If the "Obama Doctrine" is successful, Iran could (God forbid) be celebrating future September 11's in an even bigger way.

AhadHaamSheni,

I'm not buying your scare tactic. You write well, but nothing of "truthful" substance. Wow, I just described Romney. You're a conspiracy theorist without any credibility. You weren't there and have no clue. Go stick to your white sheets and burning cross.

So my fellow Republicans I'd like to offer you an opportunity to spell out your plans to move this country forward without using the typical Republican talking points...please give me specifics. I don't want to hear about a "5 point plan" because that's the "big picture". For instance:

1. When you cut taxes on the rich (those making more than $250,000.00 a year) will you be shifting the tax burden to the middle class and below? If you say no...where will you make up revenue beside massive spending cuts? If it's spending cut, please specify which programs you plan to cut!

2. Are you going to force the military into to buying weapons systems they aren't even requesting? Unnecessary defense spending, especially when the military isn't asking for it, is bankrupting this country. Fighting two wars, one we didn't ask for, is bankrupting this country. Did Republicans think about that before we went to war in Iraq? Not only did we lose money waging that war...we lost human lives on a lie! What are Republicans doing to fix that one glaring problem?

3. Are you going to remove all financial regulations instituted after the great "Collapse?" What are you going to do when the financial industry goes back to its predatory practices and causes another collapse?

4. Are you going to cut Medicare and Medicaid? How about going after Medicare and Medicaid fraud? The money you recover on fraud or waste will pay for Health-care reform. Those that commit the biggest fraud are those in the medical industry. Why not police the industry - health care should not be about profit - paying for a service yes and some profit - but not solely about or for profit? Throughout history we have seen that profit drives corruption and fraud.

5. After seeing the multiple benefits of Health-care Reform...should you actually repeal the law...what do you propose in its place? How do you plan to cut down inflationary health-care cost? Insurance costs? How do you plan to protect the American people from greedy pharmaceutical companies?

6. If you don't like the health care insurance "mandate", why aren't you pushing to end all insurance mandates, i.e. auto insurance, home insurance etc? It's the same thing. Better yet, if you're never in an accident, why not establish a law that gives a percentage of our money back because we didn't file a claim? In the end, insurance is just giving money away.

7. Are you going to end Social Security as we know it? Why? Why not go after those committing Social Security Fraud? Why not put Social Security in a lock box...you can't use those funds other than for the welfare of our aging society?

8. The biggest enemy of small business is big business. What is the Republican Plan to help with small businesses? Reducing taxes? How about getting our products overseas? How about applying tariffs on imports or in lieu of tariffs, how about enforcing trade agreements and reducing the trade imbalance? How about regulating businesses like Wal-Mart, Kmart, etc., in such a way that they have to buy America before they buy China, Taiwan, Japan or Korea?

I have many more questions and concerns...and Republicans provide very little in answers or substance....other than a so called 5 Point Plan!

U.N. Address: Two weeks after the Benghazi incident, Obama is still falsely referring to the Youtube video as the cause, near the 10, 14, and 20 minute marks of this address. Not once does he mention terror, terrorism, or terrorists in this address: via @youtube

In the Rose Garden statement on Sept. 12th, he did say "no act of terror..." but that was a general phrasing non-specific to the event in Benghazi. Obama did not use the word "terrorism" or "terrorists" in reference to the incident. Again, two weeks later during the U.N. address, he WOULD NOT use the words terror, terrorism, nor terrorists in reference to the Benghazi incident.

When speaking of fellow Muslims, Obama prefers to use the word "extremists" (which he used in the U.N. address many times) rather than the legal word "terrorists." Checking it, you will find that Obama does not use the legal word "terrorists" in reference to fellow Muslims. Obama's DHS does use the legal word "terrorists" in reference to Tea Party activists inside the U.S.

Regarding the infamous Youtube video, Goggle "Stanley Inc. and Mohammed" to get an indication of it's source.

Let's look a little closer at the timeline behind this Youtube video "explanation".

In May, 2012, Tunisian cleric Mokhtar Jebali led a demonstration in Tunis at which thousands of Tunisian fanatics chanted "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama". During that speech, Jebali repeatedly referred to the United States President as "Obama the Ape".

In June, 2012, Mokhtar Jebali was again leading a demonstration in Tunis. This time he was ranting about an anti-Islamic video. The thing is that IT WAS A DIFFERENT VIDEO THAN THE ONE ULTIMATELY USED AS A PRETEXT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SEPTEMBER 11 VIOLENCE. The video that Jebali was condemning at that rally was made by someone named Jalel Brick, and it may be that this video was ultimately unsuitable for Jebali's purposes because Jalel Brick does not have any connection to the United States.

It's interesting that the subsequent Benghazi attack is now being reportedly traced to Tunisians. But my question is, if I could come up with this information with a few key-strokes of my computer (as anybody else can, if really interested in these facts) why did the Obama administration persist with the insane Youtube video pretext for weeks? The only explanation is that the Youtube video explanation fits in with Obama's sadly distorted perception of reality.

The only real fact I need here is that the day after the Benghazi attack, while everybody - including the Arab street - was talking about the offensive video, I read an AP report that said the White House believed the attack to be preplanned. That was the first I'd heard that idea, and it came from the White House, not McCain, or anyone in the GOP. The next day the AP reported that Obama was sending two ships into the region, which were equipped with precision ordinance designed to attack small targets painted with drones - hardly an appropriate response for hunting street protesters.

I got the decided impression that the administration thought it was a terrorist attack, and was going in guns drawn to hunt down the attackers. I had not heard the Rose Garden speech before tonight, but it matched perfectly with what had been reported. He said 'no acts of terror will shake the resolve of (our) nation' and then went on to promise 'justice'.

Will one of you Romney apologists like to explain why he would talk about acts of terror in direct relation to these murders, and then promise to get these guys, if he didn't believe the attack was an act of terror? Because he didn't rearrange his words to call it a 'terrorist attack'? Really? So that makes it vague and general? Talk about denial.

'Blind Trust' is not only an investment vehicle. Romney put his in the wrong people, and got caught. End of story.

Dear Ahad: You are asking the wrong questions related to the timeline. Here are some better questions. Why was it that so many news organizations, including FOX News (which is the only news organization that has never won an award for news journalism [even Al-Jazeera has been given awards but not Fox News]) reported that the attack was the result of demonstrations? Check the timeline. Have any of these news organizations retracted their original report? Could these news reports have influenced the reaction of Republicans the following day? Didn't Mitt Romney criticize the Obama administration on Sep 12 for not criticizing the YouTube video, implying that the reaction to the video was the cause of the riot which led to the deaths at the compound? When did Mitt Romney change his assessment from that of riot reaction to terrorist attack? The day after, five days later, two weeks later? Did somebody within government, oh I dont know, say someone on the Congressional intelligence committee, leak classified information to Romney which led him to change his assessment? The timeline will tell.

You ask: why did the Obama administration persist with the insane Youtube video pretext for weeks? You answer your own question this way: The only explanation is that the Youtube video explanation fits in with Obama's sadly distorted perception of reality.

Here is an alternative explanation: the compound in Benghazi was not an annex of the embassy in Tripoli. It was not and never was a "consulate". It was a CIA safe house. A destination to which the ambassador and his staff fled after they had left the Al Qaeda infested area of Dernaa to the east. Were they followed from Dernaa to Benghazi? Was this a premeditated attack? Would that imply that sensitive information, including the existence of the safe house, had been compromised? Is this really information that we want to share with the rest of the world? Wouldn't it be prudent to wait until an investigation into a classified area has been completed before we go blabbing about it for political gain?

To answer my own questions: not if you are a bleeding heart Republican!

Terror, from French terreur, from Latin terror meaning "great fear", a noun derived from the Latin verb terrere meaning "to frighten", is a policy of political repression and violence intended to subdue political opposition. Before the advent of modern terrorism, the term "terrorism" in the English language was sometimes used interchangeable with terror. The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare. Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state. (Wikipedia, emphasis mine.)

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Therefore, an act of terror is something a government does to suppress its own people, while an act of terrorism is something that is done to create fear towards another country or political difference. BIG DIFFERENCE! It would be helpful if Candy Crowley, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Anderson Cooper, and a host of other highly paid, highly educated persons had a grasp of 5^th grade English.

Secondly, if the President really believed it was an “act of terrorism”, why didn’t he use the word terrorism, instead of the word terror? Did he deliberately use a choice of words that sounded tough, but was deceiving, and not in fact the correct word and most people would not look up the definition to see the difference?

Thirdly, if it was in fact really terrorism, and he knew that when he gave the speech in the Rose Garden that it was a terrorist act, did he allow the statement by so many of his administration, Susan Rice and others, to go on talk shows saying it was a mob reaction to a video dishonoring Mohammed? Why was this still going on, even by himself, so publicly on shows like “the View,” the “Letterman show” days and weeks later if he knew the difference that he and his cohorts are now claiming he knew?

Fourthly, and this I consider to be the most outrageous of all, to go before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and tell that same story to the leaders of the world it was a reaction to the video mentioned before? That is dishonesty of the highest order! Instead of apologizing to the rest of the world, and to the leaders of the world for a video, he should be apologizing to the American people for the desecration to the highest office of our land for deliberately ignoring and distorting the facts that he himself now claims he knew, declaring it as an act of terror, but not an act of terrorism. You can’t have it both ways!

ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

This is what he said:

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

I don't see how you parse this out...he said it. His remarks can't be mistaken for being reference to anything other than the Benghazi consulate attack. Asked and answered...

Liberals:

So which is it? Did the President know it was a terror attack on September 12th in the Rose Garden or did his assesment of the situation change for weeks as he got more facts as Biden has contended?

While I agree with you that he knew the Benghazi attack was an act of terror the very next day, I disagree that his mere mention of "acts of terror" was proof of that fact. In either case, his admission that he knew on September 12th means that the President and his administration have been lying to the American people for over a month now.

Etch-a-Sketch Romney: "I can say anything or be anything you want, until I get elected Then you can watch me change again".

An Independent Thinker

Why is it that Romney just cannot remember that it was Tripoli and not Benghazi that asked for more security, and that it was the Republicans in Congress, who voted to cut the funding? Is it a case of a short memory, or is it a case of just too much flip-flopping???

#1.26 - Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:29 AM EDT

More Democrats voted for that bill than Republicans, and it had zero to do with whether the Embassy or Consulate had a US military presence. The funding in question was for hiring contract security. The White House or Dept. of State COULD have had more security at the Consulate, or it could have pulled those people out of there like the Brits did. They did neither, and people are now dead.

I still can't fathom what the republicans want to gain over this harrassment of the president. We sent a young ambassador into a dangerous situation beyond our control. A new government formed out of the flames of revolution doesn't have a grip on the security of its nation. We knew that, the ambassador knew that, but the job was still there to do. Tragic situation. Yet, the Libyan people rose up and chased these terrorists away. The Libyan people rejected this act, the perpetrators and confirmed their revolution fought against the terrorists that were in power.

This story is sad but don't discount the good that came from it. An ambassador gave his life for his country, that's more than MitWitt would do.

HopeisGone

Candy Crowley now says: "Romney Was Actually Right on Libya"

.

watch video:

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/cnns_candy_crowley_romney_was_actually_right_on_libya.html

#1.20 - Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:57 AM EDT

At least she can admit her mistake. Referring to something as an "act of terror" in the abstract is very different than labeling it as a "terrorist attack". The Administration for weeks afterward was explicitly stating this was a protest in response to the video that spontaneously turned into an attack, and NOT a planned terrorist attack.

If the President had simply said from day one: "There was a terrorist attack last night on our diplomatic post on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, we're gathering the facts on exactly what happened, and we will catch those responsible" instead of wrongly blaming the video and apologizing for our 1st Amendment rights for weeks, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all. He didn't do that, so here we are.

Angelcrusher - if he was referring to the Benghazi attacks when he referenced "Terror" - then why days later at the UN did he blame it SIX times on a video - and even on Letterman blamed it on a video - and on the The View - said the investigation was still ongoing? He can't even get his own lies straight.

He has been covering up his life and his screwups since the day he came into office. It's like putting lipstick on a pig - you can do whatever you want to try and make it look better - at the end of the day - it smells, grunts, snorts and wallows in the mud with other pigs - because it is still a pig.

As Romney argued that Obama had failed to recognize the incident as an act of terror, Crowley interjected: "He did call it an act of terror."

Candy Crowley was right.

Mittens was wrong. He was wrong in the debate and he was wrong on September 11. He acted hastily, condemning the embassy workers under seige as 'apologists' during the demonstrations in Cairo, before the news of the ambassador's death had even broken.

Face it, Romney apologists, Mitt lost the debate. We admitted that he 'won' the first one so why can't you admit he lost the second one?

Our President stood up to him and stopped him cold, every time he tried to bully and lie.

Congratulations, Mr. President, on a fine showing last night. Our faith in you has been proven justified...not that it has ever faltered.

FORWARD!!

For the people who like Mitt Romney's ideas, I present the Romney tax plan. See the below link:

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Headline of the huffington Post, in large caps:

BARACK IS BACK

FEISTY... Obama Makes His Case... 'His Best Performance'... Andrew Sullivan: 'I Am Bloody Elated'... Mark Halperin: 'I Don't Think Anyone Could Say Romney Won'... Instant Polls: OBAMA Scores Narrow Win

...as we await the right wing batsh!t crazy spin...

"If you were scoring it on points, Obama wins on points," arch-conservative Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News. Laura Ingraham and Joe Scarborough took to Twitter to ratify Krauthammer's view.

Is there anything more rare and more refreshing than an honest conservative?

Thank you, Krauthammer, Ingraham and Scarborough for telling it like it is. Now the rest of you righties who are stuck on the spin cycle need to face reality. We are going to need rational, honest opposition, not craziness and lies, to keep President Obama on his toes in his second term.

Can't we all just get along? :)

To the delusionist Romneyites:

You are making up the Rose Garden quote, or Faux is doing it for you.

Go on to www.whitehouse.gov

Go to Speeches and Remarks.

Go back to the date needed (not yours or Romney's made-up date).

And look at what the President ACTUALLY said - in THIS Universe.

In THIS part of the galaxy, 2012.

Godspeed.

Hey teatards -- get over it. You had a moderator that did not allow Mitt to tell one lie after another. Romney wasn't up against Pizza Man or Rick Perry -- he was in the big leagues. He struck out.

As a democrat in favor of Obama, I will concede that it was not her place to argue the point with Romney. On the other hand she was absolutely correct in her assertion. Furthermore, the way Romney handled the whole Benghazi issue to the media as it played out, betrayed his misplaced priorities. That, in itself should have turned some voters weeks ago.

So, the fat, homely frump in the wrinkled, ill fitting suit from CNN had to come to the rescue of the Great Democratic Messiah....how pathetic!

Obama didn't want to call it a terrorist attack because he didn't want a 9/11 on his watch especially so close to an election. Well guess what Mr. President, it was a terrorist attack and you are covering up your ineptness on foreign policy just as you do everything else.

Another conservative viewpoint:

Ana Navarro: Obama had the edge

The second presidential debate has ended but the election roller coaster ride continues. The annoying truth serum is getting in the way of my partisanship again. I give President Barack Obama a slight edge in this debate, in large part because this Obama was so much better than the one in his first debate. He benefited tremendously from this comparison and the lowered expectations.

Mitt Romney gave a solid performance. He was articulate. He came armed with facts. There were some questions he dominated. But he did make some mistakes. He continuously became the moderator. He tried enforcing the debate rules, which he has a tendency to do and is awkward about it. And Romney repeatedly took on the role of himself questioning Obama. The problem with this was that it put the ball back in Obama's court, giving him another chance to respond. Romney also flubbed the Benghazi issue. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, but Romney didn't land a knock-out blow on it.

I didn't hear "the vision thing" from either man. The one who inspires us, gives us confidence that things will be better and that brighter days are in our future, will win this race. Fortunately, there are still three weeks of campaign and one more debate for these candidates to make us believe. These debates have become analogous to playoff games. Right now the score is one to one. The first debate was a blow-out victory for Romney. The second debate was a narrow victory for Obama. We have one more game to go. Play ball!

Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and commentator, served as national Hispanic campaign chairwoman for John McCain in 2008 and national Hispanic co-chair for Jon Huntsman's 2012 campaign. Follow her on Twitter @ananavarro.

Jersy Girl 1 ( or jrsygrl-6605722)- You created a new account just so you could post during a short suspension? Whatever. You want to see ineptness in foreign relations, just look to Romney's visit to Europe.

JERSY GIRL 1

Obama didn't want to call it a terrorist attack because he didn't want a 9/11 on his watch especially so close to an election. Well guess what Mr. President, it was a terrorist attack and you are covering up your ineptness on foreign policy just as you do everything else.

You are equating the murder of our Ambassador and three other diplomats in Libya to the terrorist attack on our country on September 11, 2001, in which thousands of Americans were killed in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.?

You should be ashamed of yourself for belittling all of those who died on 9/11. You should be ashamed for trying to use the death of our ambassador as a political football. You should try working in an American embassy in the Middle East. But you don't have the credentials or the courage to go there.

Your opinion is based on your hatred and on your lack of knowledge and experience. That makes it kind of useless. Chris Stevens gave his life to promote peace and understanding, and you dishonor his memory every time you bring up this issue.

Just go dig up some potatoes and stop discussing issues that you know nothing about.

Jersey Girl 1 - I apologize. The accusation was completely out of line. --It was the other account that was the spare not this one. Friends? :-)

obama lost again!. The Benghazi-Gate cover-up is just one of the final nails in obama's political coffin, and we the people get to drive in the final nail next month.

Candy Crowley was the biggest loser in this debate. Moderators are not supposed to insert their two cents into the discussion, but she clearly did .

The big winner of this debate was Mitt Romney. The central issues facing voters are the economy and jobs. Mr. Romney exposed Mr. Obama's abysmal record on both and Obama's lack of a concrete plan to address either. In contrast, Mr Romney put forth his clear record of economic success, in both the private and public sector,and a concrete plan to get our economy back on track and create private sector jobs. In addition, voters will now be demanding specific answers about why our Ambassador was not properly protected in Benghazi and who it was that made that call. Questions Mr. Obama never answered and he will have to face again in the foreign policy debate less than 7 days away.

As for Mr. Obama,he had a better showing than his abysmal performance in the first debate, but his first debate performance was so bad that simply showing up and talking with a modicum of relevance was better.Which is just about all he did last night.In fact, most of what he said was a repeat of the first debate. He just said it with a little more passion. Big whoop! Over all, so far Mr. Obama has looked every bit the amateur he really is. When the dust settles and the votes are cast Romney will win.

Liberals scoff at the notion there is bias toward Obama in the media, and yet a supposedly neutral debate moderator took Obama's side in espousing a lie. Obama never called Libya a terrorist attack, he went before the UN days later and mentioned a YouTube video six times. Our UN Ambassador made the Sunday talk show rounds calling it spontaneous and fueled by a video. Jay Carney repeated claimed it was in response to a video in White House briefings.

Obama read a prepared speech where the words acts of terror not tied directly to the attack in Libya were used, then he climbed aboard AF1 for fund raisers in Nevada and Colorado before going on Letterman where he again said it was a spontaneous attack fueled by a video. The Obama claim to get to the bottom of this with a full investigation is a joke, just like his administration has blocked the Fast & Furious investigation at every turn. This is just the perfect example of how Obama can look all Americans in the eye and lie through his teeth. Obama is all about him, and not about us.

Points to Ponder - "A debate in which one of the people currently holds the office in which he is defending and trying to convince undecided voters that he should be elected, is not much different than a sporting event in which a team or person is the current champion. The Champ has to not only win, but completely overwhelm the challenger in order to show who the Champ is and why."

Actually, if you use your boxing analogy, it is completely the opposite. A challenger has to clearly show that he dominates The Champ. You got it backwards, like a lot of other stuff. In such a boxing match, (assuming it was an even fight, which it wasn't) The Champ will not lose his belt unless the challenger clearly beats him. Same with football. If both receiver and defender have possession of the ball, it goes to the offense.

But nice try.

You can tell the Fox Noise watchers are responding here! One can pass over the video taped day after news conference where President Obama clearly states it was a terror attack, even though at that point no one knew the real truth. But posters here are easily led to jump to conclusions, dismiss the actual facts of funding cuts by your boy Ryan and his austerity guys in congress mainly by their only source for 'information'- Fox Noise. Hey take a run around the dial people!

No one in this crowd jumped to conclusions when we were attacked on 9/11, some even deny to this day the facts there that intelligence was basically ignored. Perhaps this is what this is all about- the right still harbors guilt feelings about the worst terrorist attack happening on a Republican administration's watch, and they'll try anything to even the score by denigrating a Democrat, especially Obama.

Romney, since he first heard the news about the demonstrations at our embassy in Cairo, has tried to use that incident and the death of our Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans as a political football.

Romney has been roundly condemned all over the world for doing that.

Romney showed his weak diplomatic potential in England, Israel and Poland just months ago. He insulted his host countries, insulted Palestinians, and showed that in general he is a limp dishrag in an otherwise empty suit, a puppet of the neocons. Behind closed doors he doesn't talk so tough, does he.

Romney's most glaring weakness as a candidate is his lack of knowledge, experience and ability on foreign relations and national security.

So why does Mittens keep harping on the Benghazi attack? Simple: The Karl Rove playbook clearly states that the strategy is to attack the president on his strengths.

President Obama has done a stellar job as commander in chief, so they keep going after him on that issue to try to discredit him. It's not working.

OBAMA/ BIDEN NOVEMBER 6

...letting themselves off the hook for their security failure that got an ambassador killed and an embassy (that's US SOIL, folks!) overrun...

Get your facts straight, texas!

Ambassador Stevens was killed in Benghazi, Libya-- not at the embassy in Tripoli, not at a consulate, but at a CIA safe house.

This issue is a loser for Romney...but just keep beating the war drums guys. That'll win it for ya! LOL

OBAMA/ BIDEN, the choice for sane Americans

On September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack President said, "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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

Trying to claim that Obama was talking about acts of terror in general and not in regard to the Benghazi attack is simply groping for straws. This was a press conference called for about the Benghazi attacks. He said we would find the people responsible. There is no way this statement was about anything other than the subject at hand.

Romney was totally out of his depth on this and unprepared. He somehow was briefed that there was NO mention of terrorism or he wouldn't have gone down that path. His staff better start listening to all the news and not just the Fox News and talk radio versions of it. Because Romney clearly didn't know what the actual statement by Obama was, he looked foolish and totally unprepared in his attack on it. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody at the Romney campaign gets fired today for misleading Romney on this in the debate prep and definitely making him look not presidential.

Hey libtards!,

Obama was clearly referring to the original 9/11 when he mentioned acts of terror, cleverly starting the quote after the mention of 9/11 does not hide this. If he thought it was and act of terror, why did he have his UN ambassador go out and say it wasn't several days later?

He's a lying POS!

The only way liberals can watch a video or read the transcript of Obama's day after Rose Garden speech and hear what they claim, is if they take his words out of context. Which apparently is okay in this instance, since it provides cover for yet another Obama failure. The funny part about the Romney statement is that he got it right immediately. Maybe Obama should ask Romney what happened next time, obviously Obama doesn't have reliable sources.

Pointstoponder said:

Why can't Obama acknowledge that extra security had been all but begged for by security officials but they were told that the local Libyans could provide it? They asked many times and were repeatedly denied...read the MSNBC from yesterday about Hillary and you will see it.

According to what I heard, Ambassador Stevens and diplomatic personnel in Libya were asking for an extension for the US Security Support Team, headed by Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, to continue in Tripoli after their second deployment extension was scheduled to end in June (the SST had already been there one deployment + 18 extra months, the diplomatic party were asking for another 18 month extension):

Asked for comment to the memo and Wood's comments, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee told ABC News: "Diplomats working in Libya viewed security provided by highly trained Americans as critical to their safety and mission. The Oversight Committee's investigation continues to seek answers about why - even as threats against Americans increased - senior State Department officials erroneously decided such security was no longer needed."

In February, the embassy reported to the State Department that the "security environment in Tripoli remains uncertain and unstable. Although there has been a marked decrease in the number of militia checkpoints around Tripoli, the Transitional National Council (TNC) has not yet succeeded in demobilizing the multiple militias or bringing them into a centralized command and control structure. There continues to be large numbers of weapons throughout Tripoli, with gunfire heard throughout the city on a daily basis."

The State Department pushed the American diplomats to develop plans to transition its security staffing to one that incorporated more locally based assets, but its ability to do so was "severely limited by a number of factors," the February memo states, including inconsistent support from the Libyan government, no reliable "armed, uniformed host government security at our residential and office compounds," no "real progress on the policy framework required to support a transition to an armed locally engaged body guard force," silence from the Libyan Minister of Interior when it came to formal U.S. "requests for firearms licenses, training sites, or static, host nation security."

The request concludes: "Given the unstable security environment, projected staffing increases, lack of physical and technical security upgrades in place and continued high volume of VIP visits, Embassy Tripoli requests an extension" of the Security Support Team for four months, which "will allow us to implement the security transition plans recommended by the Department. A loss of SST now would severely and negatively impact our ability to achieve the Department's policy and management objectives at this critical time in Libya's transition."

Investigators are exploring whether anyone at the State Department told the Embassy specifically not to request another extension.

So yes, based on this one could say that Ambassador Stevens' diplomatic party asked for more protection, but he asked it from the State Department--his boss--to pass on to the President.

One would, however, be wrong in saying that President Obama ignored it--from the general tenor of the above-quoted report, it seems that he was never given the chance since senior State Department officials did not pass on the request from the diplomats to the administration, and it appears to be under question whether someone ORDERED the diplomatic team NOT to request the SST from the President.

So while other contributing causes may have been lack of funding, the blame would rest squarely on the official in the State Department who denied the request and may have ordered the diplomatic team not to go over their [State Dept] heads and ask the President directly.

President Obama would have been truthful in saying he personally had not known of any such request--but as the State Department is part of his administration, and he did nominate Hillary as Secretary of State (but lets not forget she had to have bipartisan approval from Congress before she could be confirmed in the spot) then yes, President Obama is responsible for the failures of his administration.

Leading from behind. That obamas plan. So in other wordrs he has no plan.

This was a terrible incident. One that could have been avoided. He did not take steps to avoid and people died. He can get uppity and upset all he wants when he is called on it. He can try and lie like he has been doing. People with common sense see thru him. He has zero leadership skills. Zero pride in America. As a President I will give him a zero also.

Way past time for a change.

Ms. Crowley's wrong-headed interruption on the Libya discussion was surely a big fat bone thrown to the President. At least she has found the honesty to later admit that she should not have stepped in to help Mr. Obama out because she was wrong on the facts.

But more to the point...82 undecided voters in the room with a question in their pockets...Ms. Crowley selects one of eleven questions that asks "How will you keep AK-47 rifles out of the country ?" ???

That was one of the eleven questions that the American voter needed answered ??? Did Ms. Crowley simply draw the questions out of a hat ???

Very next day in the Rose Garden, President Obama said:

"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."

Where in the statement above does Obama say as he claims that "the Benghazi attack was an act of terror"?

Obama NEVER said that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror.

Obama tried to put a spin on it during his Rose Garden speech and he tried to put a spin on it last night and Crowley fell for it. Did anyone notice how fast Obama responded to Crowley? He knew he got her.

She later said that Romney's assessment was correct.

And by saying "ACTS of terror", well Mr. President, how many acts were happening in Benghazi?

Just one act was happening and that was the killing of Ambassador Stevens.

So by Obama saying "acts" implies that he was talking in general about terrorism.

@daveNJ-2028123

One can pass over the video taped day after news conference where President Obama clearly states it was a terror attack, even though at that point no one knew the real truth.

Can you, or any one else for that matter, then please explain why the President and all of his surrogates kept mentioning "spontaneous" protests regarding the Muhammad video when they knew within 24 hours that there never was a protest in Benghazi?? The President himself specifically blamed the attack on the video MULTIPLE times, knowing it had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this lie is a puppet and anyone who isn't pissed off by it is a hypocrite because we all know what you'd have to say if GWB had tried to pull some BS like this.

Here's a new Reuter's article that you might find interesting on Benghazi:

(Reuters) - In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.

Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.

So brazen was the Islamist presence in the Benghazi area that militants convened what they billed as the "First Annual Conference of Supporters of Shariah (Islamic law)" in the city in early June, promoting the event on Islamist websites.

Pictures from the conference posted on various Internet forums featured convoys flying al Qaeda banners, said Josh Lefkowitz of Flashpoint-Intel.com, a firm that monitors militant websites. Video clips showed vehicles with mounted artillery pieces, he added....."

So it's fair to say that the US knew of a threat, a growing threat, and an open threat. Tell me why the US chose not to spend the $100M of State Dept. money earmarked for upgrading US embassies/consulates when they knew this threat was growing? When they were watching the drone video of the event, why did it take them weeks to figure out that it was terrorism?? Why are they parading around not sure what happened? Why did Hillary take the blame away from the President, just to have his take it away from her last night??? Why didn't the President take the blame a week+ ago if he felt that way???? I just think it's clear that the President and his administration don't know what to do and how to come out unscathed when they didn't give the requested/required support.

BTW- I fully anticipate there will be a strike on Libya within the next few weeks. A show of force that the President is dealing with the problem. I think it's the Clinton asprin factory bombing all over again.

How can anyone claim that Obama said this was a terrorist attack on 12 Sep? My gosh, the 'administration' which consists of him basically, sent out his UN ambassador 4 days later to tell the world it was the video. Did the UN ambassador somehow decide to call the talk shows and tell the story without Administration approval and consent? Is that remotely possible here?

Then the Village Idiot in Chief goes out on 24 Sept and blames the video himself personally - but Obama and the Press now want us to believe that he thought it was terrorism the day after?

"We have always been at war with Oceania. . . ."

HaHa lefties, even NBC admits that Romney is correct... and its in this article even.

The brain washing of the left is amazing, even after 4 years they still believe the Emporer has new clothes.

"Indeed during the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration officials publicly asserted that the uprising in Libya was essentially a spontaneous reaction to the video"

All this wrongheaded and wrong-on-the-information interruption by Ms. Crowley (D) did was focus media attention on what the President ACTUALLY said on the day after the "terrorist attack" and the actual tape that is being played everywhere this morning does not back up Mr. Obama's or Ms. Crowley's assertion.

I'm glad that Ms. Crowley's mistaken interruption gave the President a chubby last night..."Can you say that again Candy???" he pleaded....he was more than delighted that she might even repeat her mistaken info a second time.

However...debate #3 next Monday is a foreign policy debate and with six days to go, there will surely be more information available for discussion...I'm sure Mr. Romney will be more than pleased to relay the information. Hopefully, the moderator will remain silent instead of attempting to bail out Mr. Obama like Ms. Crowley did.

The bottom line on this is that we had a terrible incident occur to some of our diplomats overseas. And as soon as it happened the right pounced on this and have tried to use it for political gain. It is amazing to me that our country cannot see past their partisan bickering over who said what when or why. As an American I do not give a damn about who the left or right thinks is at fault over this. What I want to see again is solidarity as a nation when things occur overseas that affect our security or cost American lives.

This is another fine example of how our politics are messing up our country. Why we can't focus on correcting the issues and bringing the perpetrators to justice together in a non-partisan way is ridiculous. Our country, not yours or mine, OUR country is being torn apart by this kind of self serving idiocy.

Barry apologized... "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

Then he makes the statement... "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."

Barry's statement on "terror" was nothing more than word-play.... he did not come out & clearly state this was an act of TERRORISM... once again, he mealy-mouthed the words, sending unclear messages to anyone listening to him......

Terrorism should always be met with EXTREME PREJUDICE.........

OUwhine

The bottom line on this is that we had a terrible incident occur to some of our diplomats overseas. And as soon as it happened the right pounced on this and have tried to use it for political gain.

And they continue to do so.

You lefties always lie about things that you get called out on. The right is not using the attack for political gain. They are simply calling out the administration for another FAILURE. Maybe you lefties don't want to hear the truth from our President but I feel we should ALWAYS get the truth.

President Obama screwed up and called the attacks the result of a video. All that did was upset the midddle east about the stupid video. Had he not made up that lie how many people would have eever known about the video? Whoever started that lame excuse should be held liable for all the violence that came from bringing it up.

Instead of keeping tens of thousands of troops still in Iraq we should have beefed up security for our diplomats in conflict areas, like Libya.

JH...

Exactly right. The guy who made the goofy YouTube video would have had to pay millions of dollars to advertisers to get the promotional coverage supplied by Mr. Obama and his staff, at no charge. And how many more crazies in the Middle East went searching for the video after learning of it thru the "White House Advertising Company" and all the attention they brought to the fuzzy video production.

All in an effort to avoid a whisp of blame.

Suspicious! Obama, "Proceed." "Read the transcripts Candy." In a nanosecond, she interjects a "fact check" (moderator, NOT!) and interprets a vague comment as "Terrorist Act."

Did Candy and Obama practice this response? Sure seems suspicious!

Yeah...that was pretty wierd how the one "correction" by Ms. Crowley turned out to be such a load of crapola. Wonder who Ms. Crowley voted for in '08 and will be voting for in November ???

Jim Lerher got a lot of flak for the debate he moderated...yet he ran a perfectly unbiased debate !

One of the questions Ms. Crowley selected...out of 82 possibilities...was having a lady ask Romney how he was "different from George Bush"...shouldn't have the question also ask Mr. Obama how he was "different from Jimmy Carter". No...Ms. Crowley felt that an unbiased question would be having Romney say how he was different than Mr. Bush and then have Mr. Obama give his opinion on the differences between Bush & Romney.

Great job, Candy...it would have been a little less obvious if you had thrown a banana peel in front of Mr. Romney's feets as he walked across the stage.

The Libya issue has become a huge Albatross around the neck of team Odumbo. Because of the way this exchange unfolded, it has become the lead story for the entire country. The problem for team Odumbo is, there is no way to extract themselves unscathed, they are totally boxed in on this issue and people are paying very close attention to it now.

1. Your left with 2 choices, either Odumbo lied repeatedly to the American people over several days, or he and his team are totally incompetent in performance of their jobs, take your pick.

2. Obamas reaction to the terror attack, I think I'll go to Nevada to raise some money for my doomed campaign. Never mind we were just attacked in a manner that would have resulted in a declaration of war under past administrations (except Carter and Obama).

3. They've thrown Hillary under the bus, she put on the big boy pants and took responsibility. Hope she realizes she now has 0, ZIP, NADA, NO chance of ever being president. Talk about taking one for the team, she just got screwed by team Odumbo. I bet Bill wishes he'd never gone to bat for the a$$ clown.

I wonder if Odumbo will suddenly have some major emergency to tend to come Monday night so he can avoid the final debate. This will be brutal.

What I find appalling is how Romney (and apparently many people on this post) try to put POLITICS above the death of 4 human beings. I hope you all feel good about putting your need to be "right" above the lives of these honorable and brave Americans who WANTED to serve in a knowingly dangerous and unstable region! The fact is our ambassador lived in Libya long before he became ambassador. He LOVED the Libyan culture and peoples. And many LOVED him! He chose, MANY TIMES, to go outside the normal procedures of safety for state department personnel in the part of the world because he KNEW how he would be perceived otherwise. In many ways, it was HIS OWN familiarity and comfort in his own experience in Libya that made him more vulnerable! Somewhere along the line, you have to assume PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for ones behaviors and actions. He was not even in the consulate on the day of the attack!!! That was HIS choice (again, disregarding normal operational procedure). He had done this for YEARS! But many ignorant people on this post (and Romney, the leverage buyout king!) get on here (AFTER the fact, conveniently) and play armchair general! Disgusting! As a vet, I find your politicizing the death of our state service personnel disgusting and UN-American! Romney says he feels "sad" over the deaths while, at the very same time, having that despicable CEO red-meat mentality and wanting to score political points! What a joke. I wouldn't follow that kind of opportunist as Commander-in-Chief for all the tea in China! BTW- Bain is moving a profitable company in Freeport, Illinois to China as we all sit here today! Anyone care to talk about that lying POS Romney on that point??????

Brad-727901

What I find appalling is how Romney (and apparently many people on this post) try to put POLITICS above the death of 4 human beings

And intentionally misleading the American people and the world was what exactly if not an attempt to put politics above the death of 4 human beings??

Try not to make a hypocrite out of yourself when expressing how "appalled" you are because if one upsets you so much the other should as well.

Hey Backcountry164....you don't even know what the hell you are talking about! You sound like the parrots at FOX noise. Were you there in Libya? You know for a FACT that the President, who knew Stevens, appointed him based upon Steven's love, knowledge and personal love for Libya, a friend to Stevens, is now trying to covering up for his death? You are a joke! LOL! The President said CLEARLY...he takes PERSONAL responsibility for Stevens and the others killed. Hillary, he said, works for him, and does not have the last word on this tragedy! Take your hypocritical and outrageous conspiracy notions somewhere else. People capable of critical thinking and reason will not buy your (and the right wing nuts in general) BS on this issue.

Brad

What I find appalling is the FACT that the White House blamed the attacks on something that it wasn't. How many people were injured because of the attention that the White House gave to that stupid video????

Our next president, Mr. Romney, had every right to bring up the very poor response from this administration. At the same time he let the middle east know that he would handle things in much different manner.

@citizen of the world

You are a joke! LOL!

FYI- insults aren't very effective when they come in the middle of delusional ranting and raving.

People capable of critical thinking and reason...

LOL! And what would you know of such people??

All right, folks. You seem to have made up a story about Benghazi, and repeated it so many times you believe it yourselves. Poor Romney also got caught up in the echo chamber, and was called on it when he repeated it as fact. Since nobody responded to me regarding the fact that I found out this was potentially a preplanned terrorist attack from the White House (not the GOP), I looked up the article from september 12. It is why, in referring to the murder of the 4 Americans, Mr. Obama called it an act of terror:

WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, may have been planned and organized in advance, U.S. government officials said on Wednesday.

The officials said that there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved in organizing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya's second-largest city.

They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.

"It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack" and appeared to be preplanned, one U.S. official said.

The next day came the reports that military ships with precision ordinance were moving into the area. That ordinance has had one purpose for many years: to take out individual terrorists.

Your attempts at parsing out Obama's clear statement, and attacking the moderator for correcting Romney (when he himself had asked the question she answered) is just pathetic. If you want to make hay on the issue in the real world outside your own echo chamber, you've got to vet your information in the real world.

Uh Snakebone - where does that quote reference what Obama said? It refers to 'US Officials.' You are not that ignorant, are you?

The President does not speak off the record. He would not be referred to as a 'US Official' Obama did not say what you claim he said - and that article does not say that he said it.

Intelligence officials were talking about it as a terror attack since 12 Sep. Then they got silenced by the administration and told to not say that any more - the official line was video and video was the story/.

Don't be an idiot - we have enough of them in this country already.

Snake...

Why don't you send the above alibi to Candy Crowley...she is the person who went on the air right after the debate to say that she was wrong about the facts and should not have interrupted Romney making his paoint about the correct facts.

Comanchedriver: I did not, of course, say that the report says Obama said that. I said the White House. If that came from an intelligence official, the story would say that, as they always do. And it most certainly did not come from McCain or anyone else in the GOP. What Obama did say - and the video proves - is that he considered it an act of terror. Which, of course, reinforces what the unnamed official said.

Where did you read that someone was 'silenced by the administration'? Care to provide a link, or did you just make that up? Better watch out, or Romney will pick that up and use it in a debate - and have his butt handed to him again. Your echo chamber can't stand up in the real world.

But of course, I'm an ignorant idiot. That is par for the course from republicans, who have no control over their hatred for Americans with whom they disagree, but it doesn't change any of the facts. Go ahead, tell me again that Obama didn't call the attack an act of terror. I love hearing how I'm supposed to trust your paranoid fantasies over my own ears.

Mittens has been repeating the GOP/Fox News lies about Libya for so long that he apparently believes them. Unfortunately, his lie in the debate about Libya blew up in his face. Mittens is obviously quick to shoot before he aims, so he would be a total disaster in foreign affairs as president. He would quickly lead us into another war over his cowboy shoot em up Neo-Con approach to foreign affairs.

Seriously? You Fox Noise cool aid chuggers are wearing this topic out. Exploiting the deaths of Americans to promote your political aspirations must be inbred into your DNA. You follow in the infamous foot steps of your beloved Bush Jr. He shook his fist at the terrorist while standing in the rumble of the Twin Towers and use that tragedy to justify one of the largest ever expansions in government bureaucracy (DHS, TSA, etc) and drag us into one war. A war which could have been handle quickly and efficiently by the CIA and Special Operations Forces, only to be distracted by the opportunity to cry terrorist again in order to suck us into a bogus war in Iraq. Yea, you guys know what foreign policy is all about… Just make it up on the spot. Mitt the twit will blunder his way into a war within six months if we let him.

red.../snake...., the entire Obama administration lied for 12 days about what happened in Libya, you know it, I know, the whole country knows it, purely for political reasons. Utterly disgusting!! What I find as troubling is all these so called "smart people" in his cabinet, thought they could get away with it. The Libya debacle perfectly captures how inept team Obama is. In every problem facing our country, they've demonstrated time and again, a failure to understand the fundamental reasons for why things are the way they are. Thus the programs they implement to bring change, are doomed to fail, since they do not address the root cause of the problem. Obama is both a filthy liar and totally incapable of performing the job of president of the United States.

Hardtotheright: The only people who 'know it' are hard-core right wing conspiracy nuts like you, who already think Obama is a Kenyan socialist who wants the UN to take our guns away.

Didn't you just recently say that the UE rate was Obama 'cooking the books'? And didn't you call Biden a 'cracker'? I think you're already as deep in the rabbit hole as you can go.

What do the independents 'know' about this? They know Obama is offended at the allegation by Romney (who wanted so badly to use this for political gain he couldn't even wait to find out the facts), that he played politics over the death of four people on his own team. Do they believe him? We'll have to wait and find out. My guess is that they did, since whatever they think about the success of Obama's policies, they do consider him a straight shooter.

Turning to glare at Romney, the president added: "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, that's not what I do as commander in chief."

But that is what the administration did do. The President claims that he called the Libya attack a terrorist attack right away at his rose garden speech even though he did not. Then if he knew from the first that it was a terrorist attack then his administration deliberately mislead the American people for two weeks. Why? The President has yet to explain. Who told the UN Ambassador to very officially tell the American people something that was not true? The President has yet to explain this. I have never heard our UN Ambassador announce anything to the American people until this situation came along. Something is not right here. Either the President is not being fully honest or he is not telling the truth.

Will Haas,

You may be interested in my posts above, #1.34 and #1.39. They're based on information anyone can obtain by searching on the web. I think that as soon as the Youtube video story came out, more people should have taken the initiative to see if the blamed video was really that unique or if there had been others like it. If people would have done a little research, they would have discovered exactly how ridiculous and bizarre that whole Youtube video explanation was, and they would have started asking the obvious questions much earlier. Now we're just a few weeks away from election day and the frightening implications concerning questions about the mental health of a President of the United States who would have insisted on such a strange and unrealistic idiotic story to explain the coordinated assaults against United States embassies throughout the Muslim world (including the one on the compound in Benghazi which resulted in the murder of Americans) on the anniversary of an event (the attack on the WTC) which these Muslim fanatics consider their greatest triumph.

Oh yes, so ridiculous, the idea that a youtube video could have led to protests (there were no other 'assaults against United States embassies') across the Muslim world.

So, very strange that all those protesters told reporters about that video as the reason they were out there protesting. Coordinated lying by Muslim protesters, to mask a coordinated attack that never happened? Hmmmm. Perhaps, in the right wing nut job world. Now we know where you live.

It's truly exhausting to read comments from those like "Snakebone" above. Perhaps what is truly frightening is that there are a significant number of Americans like "Snakebone" who are unable to comprehend what they just read, and in their ignorance insult other Americans who encourage people to think for themselves. I think I said very clearly that the point I'm making is that more Americans should have asked logical questions regarding the Youtube story video story when it was first used. Questions such as "When did this Youtube video first appear?" "Are there other such Youtube videos?" "If the particular Youtube video being blamed has been in existence for a while, alongside other such videos, why is it an issue specifically on the anniversary of the Muslim attack on the World Trade Center?" "What were those participating in these 'spontaneous' demonstrations really chanting?" The answers to these questions are available for anyone who wishes to search for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, the preservation of American democracy requires that we learn how to THINK.

And anybody who has been following what's been going on would know that assaults were mounted against American embassies in Egypt and Tunisia, among others. That these attacks were not as successful or planned as a military assault in the same way that the attack on the Benghazi compound was conducted, is another matter and has no bearing to the point that I'm making. Research what it was that what these attackers were chanting. It's all available for you to find, folks.

Yes, yes, I've heard these exhortations many times before, from people who wanted me to believe that 9/11 was engineered by the Bush administration or Israel, or that the Obama guys want to use the UN to disarm Americans, or that there really was no Holocaust, and all the other crap that paranoid conspiracist loonies want to peddle.

If you think you've got something interesting to say about the issue, say it. If you want me to believe that all those protesters in the streets were lying about why they were there, make your case. If (as would be more interesting) you think they were intentionally manipulated to become offended at the video, offer your hypothesis. But if you want me to watch a bunch of loony propaganda videos (where apparently I'll learn how to THINK), I'll have to admit I have a lot better things to do with my time.

The fact that you called into question the president's mental health (???), referred to a coordinated attack that never occurred, and called what every news agency here and in the free world knows to be true 'idiotic', says a lot more about you than you seem to realize.

How about this for a conspiracy theory...

...it was a group of fanatical-ultra-Conservative-tea party Republicans who did a high and low search for a "recently fired" conservative leaning anti-Obama ex-CIA operative and paid him to go to Libya. His mission was to case the Embassy and come up with a plan of attack against the Embassy Staff and then turn over a You Tube link containing a very incendiary video to a local jihadist. This ex-CIA operative told the jihadist that in order for this to be successful, the jihadist would need to create an environment where there would be daily demonstrations - violent demonstrations. The ex-CIA operative said that a few days before the attack, the jihadist would need to squash the demonstration, send everyone home, then wait a few days before attacking the Embassy. The ex-CIA operative said that he needed time for the Administration to do threat assessment and then deny reinforcements to the Embassy. Once the denial was sent, the Jihadist his green light to attack the embassy.

In comes Romney - who by the way, already had given his press response, before everyone actually knew what was happening. Now isn't that fishy?

IF you go back and look at every article since this attack you'll see that Obama and his admistration called this attack the response to the youtube video for days on end. The UN Ambassador got on tv days after and called it the response to the video. So which is it???? They knew from the get go that is was a TERRORIST attack or the believed it was due to the video. They can't have it both ways!! Obama lied, denied and deflected when Romney called him out on this!! THe administration was warned ahead of time that something might happen. Why didn't they do something about it???? IT doesn't require a whole lot of intelligence to understand that these terrorist would love to attack us AGAIN on the anniversary of 9/11!!! Security world wide should have been beefed up at that time!!!

Libya is NOT a small issue in this campaign as daveNJ states in his post #2.3!!!! And to suggest that it's not is just plain ridiculous!!!! It goes straight to heart of Obama's credibility as a President of the United States of America, as a man, and as an American!! How can you get behind a POTUS that thinks it's more important to leave DC and go campaign for reelection in Viva Las Vegas when this kind of thing is going on?? Letterman, the view and Beyonce seem to be his TOP priorities!!!

That debate was a FARCE! HOW did Crowley know to support Obama unless they had discussed it in advance? She said Obama and Romney didnt know the questions...only she did!

She came out the next day and admitted Romney was right!

How many people have to put their careers on the line for Barry?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/agUx79yG1Lo?rel=0

Go Navy SEALS!!!

@Snakebone

Oh yes, so ridiculous, the idea that a youtube video could have led to protests (there were no other 'assaults against United States embassies') across the Muslim world.

Try to keep up. There were no protests in Benghazi! None, nadda, zip; peace on the streets until the moment of the attack and the videos from the consulate show that iirrefutably.

Even if there had been "protestors" in Benghazi prior to or at the same time as the military-style assault. Any attempt to do harm to American personnel and property is an assault, whether done with bare hands or with RPG's. The issues of importance are whether lack of responsibility by our government put us at risk for either eventuality, whether the fact that assaults (whether with RPG's or with bare hands) took place simultaneously at several cities in the Muslim world means that these actions were coordinated, and why did our administration so vehemently insist on feeding us the Youtube video pretext for so long.

Although there are those American fanatics who would ridicule anybody asking questions as a "conspiracy theorist" and worse, the very preservation of American democracy requires that we learn how to THINK. Be very suspect of anyone who has a problem with asking questions about how our government handles something.

MORE? As in what can be worse than being brutally SODOMIZED before being MURDERED????

SHAME on Hillary........he was your "dear friend"!!!!

You LET Barry LIE about it for WEEKS!!!!!

There is still time....DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You want some cheese with that whine???

Butcher...no cheese, just truth!

Whats not true. Or is your non response all you have.

So, tell me Butterfly - exactly where was Romney and the other Republicans trying to make political gain off of this - when Ambassador Stevens' and the others caskets were returning to the US if they are SOOOOOO concerned about the safety of our consulates and those who serve? Frankly, if I were President Obama, I would have shoved it back in Romney's face tonight and told him and the rest of you RepubliKKKans that you're really hypocritical political opportunists trying to gain a political weapon because of the death of our Ambassador than ever accept the fact your war-mongering ideology is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

you r an idiot. keep praying for someone to trickle down on you.

It is never too soon to defend America!!! What a crock. What they mean is, "It is always time to try to wring political mileage out of a tragedy, even if the facts are not yet known, and the lack of security can be blamed on $300 Million in cuts to security voted for by none other than Paul Ryan."

Wrongme could not have voted either way. He has been a Career Campaigner for the last 7 years. Wrongme is wrong about 100% of America, and wrong FOR 100% of America.

@Diane Reeves

So, tell me Butterfly - exactly where was Romney and the other Republicans trying to make political gain off of this

So tell me Diane, You don't think the President lying and misleading the American people about what actually happened was done for "political gain"?? Or does that sort of thing only bother you when republicans do it??

Actually, President Obama's lies have been so frequent the liberal Obama leg humpers now swallow them without question. The Fast and Furious coverup was shut down because Obama invoked executive privilege to STOP the investigation of the matter by Congress !

If you need clarification for Obama spin, just re-read what his minions were saying for weeks. Here's UN Ambass. Rice:

We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."

You can bet your last buck Romney will be WELL PREPARED to debate this issue again in debate #3. The only question is what will team Obama do??? Which "face" of Obama will we see then??? Which lie, half truth, or blame for everybody but himself will BO use???? The night before the debate HIllary is taking the blame for the whole debacle. Last night BO FINALLY says the buck stops with him. BUT he really din't take responsibility and he won't have until and unless he admits he kept stating for more than a week after the attacks that the blame went to the youtube video!!!