blame squarely on the shoulders of the intelligence community for the susan rice sunday talk show our where they blamed the assassinations on a video which we know is not true. he answered for the first time where they allegedly got that information and he put that on the intel community. ralph peters will explain why he says that claim directly contradicts the way america s intel community works. when the vice presidential debate was over there was nothing but praise for the vice president s performance beginning with president obama himself. i thought joe biden was terrific. i thought he made a strong case, and i really think that his passion for making sure that the economy grows for the middle class came through. so i m proud of him. i thought the vice president looked very comfortable. i think he knew the person he
community, intelligence failures, megyn, when a presidential administration. megyn: let me stop you, ralph. it s two points so i want to make sure everybody is with us. there is two parts of what he said. intel people told us about a video. but i want to stay on this first thing. he s trying to say according to the white house we didn t know, the president and i didn t know that these folks at the consulate were asking for more security. does that matter? or is the president and the vice president, are they responsible for the acts of their state department in denying those repeated requests which when know were made? the president is commander-in-chief and in the military the president is responsible for everything his subordinates do or don t do. it matters because clearly they weren t curious about libya. i would like to know how many of the daily intelligence briefings
challenger in total contempt, you have to wonder for voters in their 20s and 30s who had ever been treated like that by somebody older than him, how it made them feel to see paul ryan be jeered at by an incumbent vice president of the united states. i know that the vice president was trying to show that he was tough and would attack, but his countenance did not match up with the moment. megyn: i think you ve hit on an interesting point. having anchored this broadcast for several years, the things that affects viewers more than anything else is one to two participants talk over each other. they don t like the debates, they like a fiery debate and a robust back and forth, but they get upset when one person won t let the other person speak. we saw mitt romney very aggressive with president obama last week. you know, trying to have the last word and make a final point. and it didn t seem to me that he disabled barack obama s ability to be heard. did we see something different last night?
headshaking, it was openly contemptuous and disrespectful. megyn: that was chris wallace. editor of fox news sunday. getting some attention with his comments last night about vice president joe biden. chris wallace should know because he has seen just about every vice presidential debate over the last five decades. do you agree? peter johnson junior sees a tactic in the vice president s approach. the tactic was to provide energy and excitement to a failing campaign in many respects. the debate that obama had 10 days ago, it was devastating to the campaign. so instead, we have this episodic smiling, laughing, smirking, contempt, as chris wallace was saying, and it became almost a pathology. it became more than a strategy. it became almost obsessive