The AllahPundit convinces me that Biden and Obama would be crazy to throw Hillary under the bus for the Benghazi debacle. However, he does not convince me that Biden is not crazy.
The Times tries to pretend that all is well with the reassuring news that, like the Flying Dutchman, the buck stops nowhere:
In a debate with Representative Paul D. Ryan on Thursday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said White House officials were not told about requests for any additional security. “We weren’t told they wanted more security again,” Mr. Biden said.
The Romney campaign on Friday pounced on the conflicting statements, accusing Mr. Biden of continuing to deny the nature of the attack. The White House scrambled to explain the apparent contradiction between Mr. Biden’s statement and the testimony from State Department officials at the House hearing.
The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said Friday that security issues related to diplomatic posts in Libya and other countries were dealt with at the State Department, not the White House. Based on interviews with administration officials, as well as in diplomatic cables, and Congressional testimony, those security decisions appear to have been made largely by midlevel State Department security officials, and did not involve Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her top aides.
Darn those mid-level staffers! If they would only run for re-election so we could vote them out.
Janet Reno got props for standing up and taking blame for the 1993 Waco disaster when all of Washington, including newly elected President Bill Clinton, were hiding under their desks. Maybe Hillary should step up on Benghazi and confirm that she is the only person in the Obama Administration with cojones.
But blaming mid-level staffers? Really? Is Obama going to campaign on a slogan that he killed Osama and will keep America safe unless those darn mid-level stafers screw up again?
The Daily Caller reports that Bill Clinton is commencing to circle the wagons for his wife; ABC reports that Hillary is ducking the "what did she know and when did she know it" questions:
But she would not weigh in on the growing controversy about when exactly members of the Obama administration knew the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was carried out by terrorists or whether senior administration members knew that State Department security officials were concerned about the situation at the embassy in the months leading up to the attack.
The senior aides knew nothing. Set aside my Fast and Furious flashbacks - is this a winning message?
Is Sergeant Schultz a natural born citizen?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM
They got away with this on Fast & Furious, but not this time, I think.
The vision of Hillary lying her ass off alongside Stevens' coffin's going to stick.
And why did the "smartest woman in the world "think this last lie would work as well as the countless lies she's told heself and the public for the past decades?
Posted by: Clarice | October 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Follow the breadcrumbs TM. LUN.
Posted by: matt | October 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM
*heRself*
Posted by: Clarice | October 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM
The campaign is virtually over ( thankfully ) he is burnt toast. The legacy of this Presidency will not hold up well to the scrutiny of history. A cautionary tale about not allowing a neophyte full access to the levers of power.
Posted by: GMax | October 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Good place for 'em, under the bus. Hillary can join the rest of BHO's early enablers, including his poor old granny, 'Reverend' Wright and Bill Ayers; also, Israel, and the rest of us average Americans who happen to like the U.S.A before the dope CHANGEed it.
Posted by: Serr8d | October 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Yes, Serrd, wouldn't Hillary have been tipped off to the news streaming out of Benghazi before she went to the Dover ceremony, much less commissioned those ridiculous adverts.
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM
TM hasn't put up a new post in over 10 minutes. I'm worried about him. I hope everything is ok.
Posted by: hit and run | October 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Hit, it is a target rich envronment now
Posted by: PaulV | October 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Hillary's Revenge:
1. Resign a week before the election.
2. Send an e-mail to Mike Rogers at the House Intelligence Committee: "Give me immunity and I'll tell you where all the bodies are buried. Deal?"
Posted by: MarkJ | October 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM
And Jane wins.
Posted by: Have Blue | October 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Feast or famine around here, threadwise.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Really: just close your eyes and imagine the coverage if a Republican were president.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Doesn't take a lot of imagination, DoT. When it suited the media they pilloried Bush as a liar when he clearly wasn't and played completely by the rules.
Posted by: Clarice | October 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Seriously Dot? It would never have gotten this far. POTUS would have resigned in disgrace after F&F.
What bothers me more than anything is that Clinton's impeachment seems to have inoculated the Great One against any attempts to head in that direction.
Posted by: Txantimedia | October 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Would the information come through this ironically named fellow, or the Near East Division chief;
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/123210.htm
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Follow the breadcrumbs TM
I'd like to see a timeline which includes BOzo's September 12 visit to the State Department, and shows what he'd publicly said before v. what he publicly said after. Or maybe the visit was just a photo op where BOzo showed up, hugged grieving folks for the camera, and then left for his Vegas funder without seeking answers re what happened when and why in Benghazi.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 13, 2012 at 12:15 PM
I imagine Evan Bayh is sending "get tough" letters to both Obama and Clinton while trying to figure out how to get the the DNC out of the Blue Hellhole of Chicago.
It ain't like the Dems have much of a bench.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM
narciso, do the you think aq's latest incitement to holy war over the video acts as a cya for the coverup excuse?
Posted by: Chubby | October 13, 2012 at 12:18 PM
In preparing my own post, hope you don't mind I h/t you Deb, on the schedule that day. I'm reminded of that then seemingly dubious Independent piece, which now seems more on point than we thought
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Matt,
That's a great timeline. We will need it as this goes on.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | October 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM
pagar brought up Peter Dreier on another thread before I had to go pick up the diva in Stockbridge. Yikes!!
You are right about his plans. That's why I think his tribute in The Nation last week on "Remembering Barry Commoner" is important.
http://www.thenation.com/print/article/170251/remembering-barry-commoner
It's is a reminder of how key the ecology/CC/AGW tact is to reorganizing the economy to make it govt and crony driven. It cannot be communist because they want the revenue. It cannot be capitalism because they want the control. They cannot be honest it is a pure power grab because we might object in time.
Posted by: rse | October 13, 2012 at 12:27 PM
This is the piece I was referring to;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
What you have to know about Zawahiri, like Zarquawi and Abu Ahmed, unlike spoiled rich kids like UBL, is that they are serious as a heart attack, like Qutb and Sheik Rahman
their rage against their home country, comes from a real place, then again they follow the tactical advice, 'don't interfere with the enemy, when he's destroying himself'
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM
The Statement at the White House, was made before he arrived at the State Department,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-09-12
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Re BOzo's visit to the State Department on Sept. 12, it looks like it was pure show. Someone had S.D. employees gather outside in a courtyard, where BOzo addressed them, got pics of him shaking a few hands, and then left for Vegas...perhaps without even entering the building, much less seeking answers about Benghazi.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 13, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Stockbridge MA?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | October 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Thanks, Deb, Hillary's comments seem harder to reconcile;
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/?news=Statement-by-Secretary-Clinton-on-the-Attack-in-Benghazi
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Methinks Hillary---with a little help from Bill--will soon be singing that Dylan tune she heard in the 1960's. "It ain't me babe, no no no, it ain't me you're looking for---babe!"
No way she'll let Slow Joe and Obozo hang this one on her. Going to be some wreckage here--and right soon.
As for Obama--Billy Jeff has just decided to let Obama's chestnuts roast--forever.
Posted by: Bob Dylan Fan | October 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Pretty clear that the ball is now in Hillary's court. Not sure how or if she will respond.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM
I think she better brush up on another Dylan tune, 'the Times they are a changing'
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Then again, 6 days later, the notion that there was a protest at the consulate was still percolating;
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/cnns-arwa-damon-libya-warned-us-about.html
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Hillary will cover her more than ample ass. I predict more lying about intelligence.
Posted by: MarkO | October 13, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Hard Rain Gonna Fall
Or maybe
Its OK Ma, ( I am only bleeding)
Posted by: GMax | October 13, 2012 at 01:04 PM
And this piece, was ironic, in light of future events,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/cnns-arwa-damon-on-libya-_n_886052.html
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Seeing a thread with the combination of "Hillary" and "down below somewhere" just detached my mental retinas.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 13, 2012 at 01:11 PM
I remember when Obama give the SoS role to Hilary and I was quite confused why he would do that. It seemed quite risky at the time. It never made any sense. Especially after the Obama admin started to take pieces of the traditional SoS portfolio and giving them to trusted Obama men.
Someone pointed out the quote, "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" but that didn't really work. Why would Obama want any of the Clinton organization in his admin. Did he think that he could keep her out there like bait to keep the Clintonites in control? Was his control of the Democratic party that weak? Why give up her Senate seat which she could have held for life?
And now I think I finally understood, it wasn't Obama keeping the Clintons close, it was the Clintons keeping Obama closer. Clinton is protecting his legacy. Obama should be watching his back.
Posted by: Tollhouse | October 13, 2012 at 01:14 PM
The legacy of this Presidency will not hold up well to the scrutiny of history.
I hope Romney has somebody lined up to go and remove all references to the JEF that he smeared on all the previous Presidents' bios like a self-centered needy prick.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 13, 2012 at 01:15 PM
Happy birthday United States Navy.
Posted by: Sue | October 13, 2012 at 01:16 PM
Happy 237th birthday US Navy.
Posted by: Sue | October 13, 2012 at 01:17 PM
No, Tollhouse I don't think so, she had to give up her fundraising lists, including the quarrelsome Alamoudis, she had most her negotiating authority, over huge sections of her portfolio, most of her most loyal people like Lew and company, were removed from her orbit, and then they put her in the unenviable cat seat, of shepherding the Arab Spring, she 'chose poorly' and leave it at that.
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 01:21 PM
The problem is that the President's real job, along with protecting us, is the running of the country. This is fundamentally an admission that they failed to adequately do so. President Obama appointed/nominated the heads of the departments and agencies in our government with the mandate to manage such. Either their supervision/management was inadequate, and/or they should be firing the people involved.
But, the other part of this is that this is also an admission that more government is not advantageous. The left seems to be enamored with bigger and bigger government, but that would seemingly require that that bigger government be adequately managed. And, this is an admission that they can't do it.
Posted by: Bruce | October 13, 2012 at 01:23 PM
I just don't think Bill would have allowed this to go down that way. Much as I dislike the guy, he has a sort of sixth sense about politics.
Albeit, he almost lost his Presidency early on because of Hillary's stupidity with healthcare and gays in the military.
Yeah maybe you are right, Hillary chose poorly.
Posted by: Tollhouse | October 13, 2012 at 01:24 PM
We are close. Obama is outspending Romney. I think we should unite the conservative blogosphere and start a money bomb. I don't want yo lose because Obama outspent us.
Posted by: Sue | October 13, 2012 at 01:24 PM
when Biden said no one at State told the president they needed more security the response should have been to ask if no security guards were enough security.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:25 PM
Romney should be working with the republicans in the house to have Hillary called to testify about Libya as soon as possible. Before the election.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:27 PM
I think the political instincts of the Clintons is one of the most overrated things in modern politics. Slick never got 50% of the popular vote and lost control of Congress while in office. By that standard GWB is also a political genius.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 13, 2012 at 01:27 PM
THis is really where the buck falls, also happens to be CENTCOM headquarters;
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3392/qatar-france
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 01:29 PM
"... We are close. Obama is outspending Romney. ..."
these debates are turning out to have a lot more influence on voters than anything else. Romney just has to do well at the final debates. He has to do better than Ryan did at defending his positions.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Captain Hate, you are so right about Clinton's political instincts. His chief talent is that he is a very gifted liar, one who elevated the art to new levels.
Posted by: peter | October 13, 2012 at 01:30 PM
"... I think the political instincts of the Clintons is one of the most overrated things in modern politics. ..."
I agree with that. But is does not help that the Romney team did not rebut the Clinton speech at the democrat convention. The bailout of GM was a bad thing. Clinton has all of Ohio thinking Obama saved their state.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:32 PM
((He has to do better than Ryan did at defending his positions.))
forget defense. he has to go on the offense.
Posted by: Chubby | October 13, 2012 at 01:34 PM
"... His chief talent is that he is a very gifted liar ..."
So where is Romney on what Clinton has to say? He is silent. Instead he should challenge Clinton to a friendly debate before the election. Candidate debates have become a huge way to get people to hear what you have to say.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Yeah I agree, Peter; that's why there was a certain satisfaction in having the JEF scuttle the HMS Pantsuit while lying out his bony ass. Too bad the country had to be seriously damaged to do that but it would've helped if McRINO actually wanted to win the election (and even that probably wouldn't have been enough). Plus Stalin-Rodham would've torpedoed the country also; just not as quickly but maybe over 8 years.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 13, 2012 at 01:35 PM
--I think the political instincts of the Clintons is one of the most overrated things in modern politics.--
Hillary has none and Bill's only instincts, only characteristics at all really, are self preservation and self gratification.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 13, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Hillary will cover her more than ample ass.
According to Ed Klein, her lawyers are furiously trying to find ways to refuse to give up the information Congress wants. That seems to imply guilt to me.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | October 13, 2012 at 01:37 PM
Romney should do and say this that and the other thing. Immigration of any kind stinks. Free trade stinks. I am conservative and very, very concerned.
There, steve. You can go out and play now, since I said everything you were going to, only much more succinctly.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 13, 2012 at 01:38 PM
"... forget defense. he has to go on the offense. ..."
Romney's central positions are difficult to defend. Tax cuts that are revenue neutral are confusing to voters. His foreign policy of strengthening the military is kind of contrary to what we should be doing, which is minding our own business. Better for ROmney to say the deficit is real bad and hurting the economy and he will make cutting it his main priority.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:39 PM
((Romney's central positions are difficult to defend))
Obama's dismal record is the issue, not Romney's positions
Posted by: Chubby | October 13, 2012 at 01:41 PM
But blaming mid-level staffers? Really? Is Obama going to campaign on a slogan that he killed Osama and will keep America safe unless those darn mid-level stafers screw up again?
Grade A snark, TM.
Blaming your staff is Very Bad for an executive, especially one who happens to be the Leader of the Free World. Some people compare Obama to a college sophomore. I don't think he even rates high school sophomore.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 13, 2012 at 01:42 PM
"... Immigration of any kind stinks. Free trade stinks. I am conservative and very, very concerned. ..."
at least these are positions that contrast with democrats. I disagree with many of the commenters on this forum. On FP most of you seem to be for continuation of the US fighting wars for the betterment of the world.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:43 PM
reminder to self:
NEVER. FEED. A. TROLL.
NEVER NEVER NEVER
Posted by: Chubby | October 13, 2012 at 01:44 PM
"... Obama's dismal record is the issue, not Romney's positions ..."
Biden had Ryan on the ropes all night in their debate. If he had behaved better it would have been declared a major democrat victory. Ryan could not defend his medicare position for example. Kind of nuts to choose medicare as a central issue to campaign on.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:46 PM
((Blaming your staff is Very Bad for an executive, especially one who happens to be the Leader of the Free World.))
they are playing by different rules
they think derision and mockery are great debate skills, so I can't imagine what they think of professional business ethics like reponsibility, accountablity, etc.
Posted by: Chubby | October 13, 2012 at 01:47 PM
The problem lies with what is suggested in my last link, Afghanistan is a mess, mostly because General Intelligence and the ISI picked who among the mujahadeen, the ones who became the source from which AQ and the Taliban, developed a good part of their leadership. We add the emirates, as the determining players.
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 01:48 PM
Yes, Chubby you remember what happened with the Mogwai in Gremlins, right?
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 01:49 PM
"... reminder to self:
NEVER. FEED. A. TROLL.
..."
oh, don't be so afraid. If you can't debate the issues what are you doing here? Romney's choice of Ryan was a poor one. The debate showed that. Christie or Huckabee would have been able to handle Biden. Both are also more ready to step in as president if need be.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:49 PM
"The report comes from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who retired in 1993 as deputy commanding general, Pacific Command, and has served as a senior military analyst for Fox News. He is now chairman of Stand Up America, which calls itself the standard bearer for the conservancy of the U.S. Constitution.
The group has briefed the FBI, Congress, law enforcement and other agencies on terrorism and “anything that affects the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of our citizenry and way of life.”
In a column published today by WND, Vallely said a “senior and sensitive intelligence community source” affirmed to a Stand Up America research team that Obama “did not know of the raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, until after the helicopters with SEAL Team 6 had crossed into Pakistani airspace.”
The source said Obama was notified “at the golf course … which is why he was sitting in the strange sitting position in the picture that documented the White House operations room event.”
The source told Stand Up America that Panetta “was the key player who organized and supported this daring raid.”
“He signed the ‘execute orders’ with only a few people aware: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm. Bill Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus.”
The source explained the White House “was closed out of the decision because the president, through Valerie Jarrett,had turned down two or three other earlier proposals.”"
http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/m/discussion?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A414250
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 13, 2012 at 01:50 PM
"... Afghanistan is a mess, mostly because General Intelligence and the ISI picked ....
I think it is a mess because we are fighting the Taliban on their terms. If we are going to fight them better to do it the way Bush/Cheney did it after 9/11. When the Taliban take over a region they acquire enemies and have to mass themselves out in the open. We support the opposition with intelligence reports and bomb the Taliban facilities and massing of troops.
Posted by: steve | October 13, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Very thoughtful article by Roger L. Simon, who is onto something, Sample:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 01:55 PM
"I knew Janet Reno, and you're no . . . actually, you're a lot like her. Not in a good way, either."
Things Lloyd Bentsen might have said.
Posted by: boatbuilder | October 13, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Remember how the MSM cut GWB slack on Katrina because the real screw-ups were by those mid-level types? (Not to mention Ray Nagin and the State of Louisiana).
Me neither.
Posted by: boatbuilder | October 13, 2012 at 02:05 PM
be closer to a blowout than anyone, save a few, had expected.
Now where I have a heard that before?
Posted by: GMax | October 13, 2012 at 02:06 PM
And why did the "smartest woman in the world "think this last lie would work as well as the countless lies she's told heself and the public for the past decades?
Because she's seen how well lying has worked for her spouse?
Posted by: PD | October 13, 2012 at 02:12 PM
I am so tired of no one responding to the left stupid claim that Obama inherited a disaster. HE DID NOT. Reagan inherited carter mess, the Soviet Union on the march around the world, a gas cruch, recession, and a congress and press full of leftists. Bush had Sept 11th, a two trillion hit to the economy, war on our own soil, etc.
Plus ever republican has been stuck most of the time with a congress of the other party, while democrats have had the congress and the press. Even Clinton had a republican congress save his butt from a complete disaster..
Romney should say in the next debate. President Obama, every president enters office with huge challenges, the cold war, depression, oil embargoes, terrorist attacks, sept 11th. The point is what did they do to turn it around. If you weren't aware that presidents deal with overwhelming issues every day, then you clearly didn't understand the job you applied for. I can assure you come January 20th if elected I will not spend one second of my presidency whining or blaming others for the job I had spent years seeking.
Posted by: Pops | October 13, 2012 at 02:13 PM
"professional business ethics like reponsibility, accountablity, etc."
They are like garlic to a vampire. The leftists want nothing to do with them.
Look at their nomination for a czar to protect the middle class or some such BS.
Judging from her record of outright lies and distortion the last person one would pick to promote responsiblity, accountability, etc. Yet when the Democrats couldn't get her approved for that they nominate Elizabeth Warren to be a US Senator. Even more amazing is the fact that there are people who plan to vote for her despite the knowledge of her efforts to defeat the middle class of America.
Posted by: pagar | October 13, 2012 at 02:13 PM
According to Ed Klein, her lawyers are furiously trying to find ways to refuse to give up the information Congress wants.
Obama will never stand for that. The watchword of his administration is transparency.
Posted by: PD | October 13, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Gallup LV: Romney 49, Obama 47.
"Now where I have a heard that before?" From you and Rick. But Simon makes no mention of pollsters rigging their results to influence the electorate.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Well that would be the logical reaction, Danube, but I don't see it playing it out that way, I have a little experience in this, and those in Ahia might feel a twinge of dejavu.
Correct, Pops, the entire financial system had melted down, we had two wars underway, and yet Obama continued to seek the office,
he knew what he was facing, according to some accounts in Susskind, he was subsequently confused about the solution,
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 02:17 PM
((Romney's central positions are difficult to defend))
Obama's dismal record is the issue, not Romney's positions
Exactly. In this election, Romney is not the issue, Obama is.
A relentless focus on Obama's record is bad for Obama. Have you noticed how Obama's campaign now is focused on everything *bug* his record?
Posted by: PD | October 13, 2012 at 02:18 PM
*but*
Posted by: PD | October 13, 2012 at 02:21 PM
Romney should say in the next debate ... I can assure you come January 20th if elected I will not spend one second of my presidency whining or blaming others for the job I had spent years seeking.
Ryan said exactly that in the last debate, except that he said "we."
Posted by: PD | October 13, 2012 at 02:22 PM
But you're right of course, Pops, about Obama whining that he inherited a mess. He wanted the job. If he doesn't like it, he's free to resign.
Posted by: PD | October 13, 2012 at 02:23 PM
He should also say, mr president, do you honestly believe that if the federal government stopped funding PBS, big bird would go away?
Posted by: Pops | October 13, 2012 at 02:24 PM
Nowfolks, what ties the Boston Islamic Center, the Libyan, Egyptian, and Syrian
imbroglios
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2833/qatar-financing-wahhabi-islam-europe
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 02:28 PM
Afghnanistan is a mess because:
. It has always been a mess and the graveyard of empires.
. Pakistan has been playing both sides since 1979.
. Pakistan provides safe havens for the insurgency
. Afghanistan is in fact a 15th Century country
. We ignored it for 5 years after 2001.
. We have done little to stop the narcotics trade, which is a primary revenue source for the gangsters in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
. Both Presidents in charge have utterly mismanaged our involvement.
. there was never a coherent mission plan.
. We support an utterly corrupt and hated regime.
Posted by: matt | October 13, 2012 at 02:28 PM
I hope that Romney ignores the first question at next week's debate and proceeds to describe all aspects of this Benghazi travesty and cover-up with a good deal of anger in his voice. It's the right thing to do and it ought to put Obama on his heels.
Posted by: MG | October 13, 2012 at 02:29 PM
I don't consider a prediction of Romney taking 52-53% a "blowout". There has been no substantive move in the President's approval ratings in the entire year (aside from the current Gallup Grovel). The main propaganda pollsters (Quinnipiac, ORC, Marist and PPP) have all used sampling skews reflecting 2008 exit polling, without regard to to the 2010 results or to the Partisan ID changes, reflected by both Gallup and Rasmussen, showing a 18-20% decline in Democrat self identification.
The Simon piece is less than convincing. Those who remain in the Democrat Party are marginally (-5%) less supportive of Obama than Republican Party members are of Romney but the lack of support is not occurring among those who self-identify as liberals.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 13, 2012 at 02:32 PM
"I don't see it playing it out that way, I have a little experience in this, and those in Ahia might feel a twinge of dejavu."
Narc, could you elaborate on that?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Instead he should challenge Clinton to a friendly debate before the election.
ROTFLMAO, Oh my gawd you are such a dork.
Just remember steve to cash those checks the minute you get them from the Oblama machine. After the election, it will turnout that they've been running massive deficits, and there won't be any cash on hand to pay you.
Posted by: Some Guy | October 13, 2012 at 02:32 PM
"Rigging" is a very loaded word, and certainly does not represent anything I have said in the past for either Rasmussen or Gallup. I have indicated that both have changed their methodology due to Democrat pressure and without adequate explanation ( to at least me.
I know several other posters here have recently called you on your strawmen argumentation on this. Therefore I have to believe you know full well that you are putting words in others mouths and are doing so deliberately. Its disgusting, beneath you and you ought to cut it out, but for me I am just going to ignor you henceforth, so knock yourself out and have a straw party for all I care.
Posted by: GMax | October 13, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Well, Matt, I would say the first three points are covered by the GID/ISI doubleteaming, do you think that another leader other than Karzai, who was picked in part because because he was Pashtun, rather
than a Tadjik like Fahim or Rostum (sic) would ever have worked
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 02:36 PM
'Bush stole the election, too many folks in
Palm Beach, voted for Buchanan, (that was due to Wexler's special sauce, Khashoggi was somehow involved, because Lepore had
been a flight attendance on one of his airlines, 'things of that nature.
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Steve might be a Ronulan of the 10th order. He has the the lack of logic, a hint of racism and isolationist attitude that would get your card punched at a revolution meetup.
Posted by: GMax | October 13, 2012 at 02:41 PM
Hillary says that THEY (State Department) NEVER felt it was a video movie that caused the Benghazi attack:
The State Department’s insistence it never bought the story – expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations – that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.
State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill’s administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.
In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said ‘others’ in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department’s conclusion, reporters were told.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html?ITO=1490
Posted by: Paula | October 13, 2012 at 02:43 PM
narciso - what about the recent increase in Haitian converts to Islam being reported? More Wahabi-R-Us at work?
Posted by: Frau Edith Steingehirn | October 13, 2012 at 02:47 PM
"I have indicated that both have changed their methodology due to Democrat pressure"
And despite repeated requests you have shown no evidence connecting any such changes to Democratic pressure.
If you really want to draw a distinction between "rigging" and "changing methodology under Democratic pressure," keep trying. I know of no one who has called me out on this line of argument. It has been a consistent theme of both you and Rick that the pollsters are attempting to demoralize GOP voters. If you don't believe that to be the case, simply say "the pollsters are doing their best to acquire and publish the most accurate data they can, and they are not trying to influence the electorate."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 13, 2012 at 02:48 PM
All right, that Daily Mail, gives me an excuse for this LUN, you're welcome
Posted by: narciso | October 13, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Does anyone know where that prick Biden plans to be buried?
I'll gladly add him to my annual leaf viewing and USMC remembrance tour. Col Murtha and Gen Ned Almond have both been saluted with "this Buds for you"
Posted by: geezer | October 13, 2012 at 02:50 PM
Paula, Susan Rice cannot serve two masters equally well. It rings true that she would hitch her career to Obama over the Clintons--who btw treated her well during her "Race to the Top.
Posted by: Frau Edith Steingehirn | October 13, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Bill MaGurn just said that if you read the papers in Ohio you would think Sherrod Brown will win, but he thinks Mandell may pull it out.
(Is it a record to spell all three names wrong?)
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | October 13, 2012 at 02:53 PM