|The ever enticing "Eye" Candy Crowley|
To be sure, President Obama did use the term "act of terror" in his statement:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As American's, 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 the character of our people, and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe. No act 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.
Yes, Obama did use the term, but only in a general sense, and not in his description of the Benghazi attack. Elsewhere in his statement when referring to Benghazi, he called it an "attack", "senseless violence", and a "terrible act". He only used the term "act of terror" while speaking of America's resolve and character, and to events such as 9/11.
Furthermore, he and his administration refused to call it a terrorist attack for the next few weeks, continuing instead to refer to as as a spontaneous event and blaming a little known YouTube movie trailer which no one had heard of until they mentioned it. This included millions of Islamists in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere who, then aware of the "movie", proceeded to riot. All after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and the Administration's statements on the suspect "movie".
Candy Crowley has since said, after the debate, and after her damage had been done, that Romney was correct. However, as debate moderator, it was unconscionable for Ms. Crowley to step to President Obama's aid, even if she did believe Romney to be wrong. Note that she didn't speak up on any of the numerous falsehoods that the President put forth. Nor should she. A clue that this type of thing might happen came from Crowley herself, who said before the debate, that she was not going to be a "fly on the wall".
It is because of this kind of stuff that the media garners so much mistrust. It has become apparent to everyone that the moderators in the 2012 debates are not balanced in their 'moderating" , but have clearly chosen sides. Whether it's Candy Crowley, Jim Lehrer (who was most fair), or the forever in gastrointestinal distress Martha Raddatz, it is apparent to all that the deck is stacked.