Matthew Sheffield has the transcript,
CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.
And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t.
So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.
I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.
You know, I just think that I’m sort of blinded by her brilliance at, um, shilling for Obama,
However, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, “Nemesis struck when, in the middle of her clumsy attempts to offer a lifeline to a stumbling Obama on Libya, she had a deer-in-the-headlights look and an exasperated stutter, almost as if to say, “Why am I giving myself away?””
She also allowed Obama four minutes more than Romney.
Heritage’s panel of expertsanalyzed the debate. For instance,
Are Oil Companies Sitting on Leases?
Are oil companies sitting on leases? The short answer is no. President Obama made this statement tonight, and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar routinely makes this statement. But as Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance, recently testified:
By looking at the statistics over time, it is evident that industry has become much more efficient over the last several decades. While we used to hold 80,000 leases and produce on 24% in 1988, we now hold just 49,000 leases and produce on 46%. Secretary Salazar’s statements that this shows industry is intentionally leaving leases idle is tired rhetoric that fails to take into account the huge obstacles the federal government places in the way of oil and natural gas producers, and the fact that not every lease has recoverable oil and gas.
Just because oil companies aren’t drilling, this does not mean that no activity is occurring on that land. Environmental review, permitting, seismic research, and exploration may be occurring. But even that fails to address the real problem: The environmental review and leasing process takes entirely too long.
Rather than implementing an efficient leasing process, the Department of the Interior added three unnecessary and duplicative administrative regulations to the leasing process in 2010. Oil companies are not sitting on leases; they are simply not being issued by the DOI, or the DOI is making it more difficult to actually obtain the leases.
Go read the whole thing.
Ace has the flaming skull,
Crowley On September 30th: Administration Took Weeks To Admit Benghazi Might Be A Terrorist Attack. Transcript at the link.