He doesn't describe it as an act of terror. He said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."
Construe that as you want, but Romney's point was that Obama waffled on it and wasn't stern about it being a terrorist attack, even when it was clearly such. Regardless, very wrong of Candy Crowley to interject there. It doesn't matter if Romney is wrong, it's not the moderator's place to take sides, especially when the speech doesn't absolutely define the attack as a terrorist attack.
Let Obama retort and the media and fact checkers eviscerate during the post-mortem. Didn't like that she did that.
In response to both you and Richie:
The moderator of a debate is supposed to fact-check. If Obama was lying through his teeth, I'd expect the moderator to correct him. It works both ways and she needs to show journalistic integrity, just as Raddatz did in the Biden-Ryan debate. Romney was very disrespectful and I still think he's politicizing this tragedy. That doesn't excuse how Obama handled the event and he took responsibility, but he still highlighted the role of ambassadors and that it's dangerous work.
So it is that you don't like she did that because she specifically went after Romney? I highly doubt it's just that she fact-checked in general, because you ignore the fact that she fact-checked the president as well. I can only assume this because you failed to bring it up:
“It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.” She added, addressing Mr. Romney, “You are correct about that.”
Very tired of hearing excuses about liberal bias in the media, etc etc etc. I've come to terms with Obama's weak-ass performance in the first debate. He really has no one else to blame but himself, even though I still think substance in a debate matters more than style.
Also, I still want to hear about Romney's tax plans, and specifically, how he will pay for them. No offense guys, but why is it that every time I respond to your points, you totally ignore them and move onto the next issue?
Forget about Obama for a second. I want to know about Romney's plan. If you can't provide the details of how he will pay for these supposed tax cuts, doesn't that worry you a little bit? Obama has actually lowered the deficit since he took office despite Romney constantly claiming that he doubled it. Lowering taxes will increase the deficit, but cutting public funding and foreign aid will hardly make a dent in reducing our spending.
Where I thought Obama was misleading was when he mentioned Wall St. reform. I still haven't seen any arrests. He also went a bit roundabout when talking about reducing violence by aiding low SES families get more opportunities.
I'm going to end on a light-hearted note...
