We’ve already talked—at length—about the spectacle that was the first Presidential debate. While Donald Trump was his normal, unapologetic, effective self, Lester Holt—perhaps the worst moderator in U.S. history—attacked the man time and again.
This while he blatantly ignored real issues concerning Hillary Clinton. One notable example was when he went after Trump for allegedly supporting the Iraq War. Trump has to assert he was a long time opponent of the war, while Holt interrupted him and contradicted that fact.
But why didn’t Holt go after Clinton, who not only supported the war, but VOTED FOR IT as a U.S. senator?
You’d think that a sound bite from Trump from 2002 is worth far less than a VOTE from a senator.
That more than anything else (outside of Holt’s silence over Hillary’s email violations) showed the moderator’s gross bias.
Was Trump telling the truth that he was against the Iraq War? Fox News has the evidence below:
From Independent Journal:
NBC moderator Lester Holt interrupted GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, not once, not twice, but… four times at the first debate on Monday.
One of the testiest exchanges came when Trump mentioned his Iraq War opposition in a move to draw a contrast with Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war authorization as a Senator in 2002…
That 2003 interview with Neil Cavuto shows that Trump was not “in favor” of going to war in Iraq. As released by Fox News:
“Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,” Trump said. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.”
Trump continued: “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
Trump was honest during the debate when he said he mentioned during a Howard Stern interview back in 2002 that he thought the war might have been a good idea. But he quickly changed his mind, asserting that the war was a bad idea. As early as 2004 he predicted the mess we’re in right now concerning Iraq and Syria.
Compare that to Hillary, who supported the war and voted to fund it. Why should Trump be maligned for changing his mind to a better stance, while Hillary gets a pass for wasting American tax dollars over a costly invasion?
This kind of bias must come to an end. It’s the press’s job to challenge our government, yes. But when they blatantly ignore facts, giving their preferred candidate a pass, we have to begin to question their role in our society.
Should we even support an industry so full of dishonest, corrupt, and untrustworthy individuals?
I think not.
Source: Independent Journal