Says it all.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I – I certainly do. I certainly do. I – I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I – I – I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It – he did in fact, sir.
So let me – let me call it an act of terrorism – (inaudible) –
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
It’s even more profound visually. Look at Romney’s expression as he thought he was going in for the kill. Obama just drew him in.
We as lawyers love moments like this when our opponents hand it to us on a silver platter. It doesn’t happen often. And to deliver it with such arrogance!
95 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 17, 2012 at 5:43 am
Forest Queen
http://www.dailypaul.com/258853/bombshell-rod-class-gets-fourth-administrative-ruling-govt-offices-are-vacant-all-govt-officials-are-private-contractors
October 17, 2012 at 6:40 am
Erasmus
It was indeed a memorable moment, and I hope that Obama has regained his momentum in the race. By the way, if anyone thinks that Romney possesses the skills to rejuvenate our economy, I recommend an article in the current ‘Newsweek’ by David Stockman (Ronald Reagan’s budget director). I read it just before’ the debate began, and I couldn’t help thinking of it every time I saw Romney (on my computer, at TV.com). And it was hard to avoid shuddering. What a ghastly president he would make! (And I’m not a diehard Obama supporter.)
October 17, 2012 at 6:59 am
Fred Mangels
Then vote for Gary Johnson, Erasmus. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com
October 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
Erasmus
The last I heard, the Romney forces have kept him off the Michigan ballot. If I do see his name there in Nov., I may vote for him (though I don’t see eye-to-eye with him on everything (back to the gold standard?!)).
October 17, 2012 at 7:40 am
Fred Mangels
He’s on the ballot in 48 states now. I know Oklahoma is one that he isn’t on. I’m not sure about the other. Oklahoma supposedly has the toughest ballot requirements in the nation. He was actually on the ballot there, earlier, but the Republicans managed to get him booted. I’ll check on Michigan.
October 17, 2012 at 8:05 am
Fred Mangels
His campaign site seems to be down now (they’re saying it was just after the last debate, too). Posted the question on his campaign Facebook page and the first answer back was Michigan, though she wasn’t completely sure.
I’m not sure, either, but I think Michigan is the state where they disqualified him for filing papers with the SOS office 3 minutes past the deadline. Either that or it had a sore loser law where they don’t allow candidates to jump to a different party after losing the nomination from the original one.
October 17, 2012 at 8:13 am
Anonymous
That was a really stupid move on Romney’s part. That and bringing up the “hundred percent” in closing giving Obama the opening to nail him to the wall. I think this was a bigger win for Obama than the flash polls are indicating. We will know within a few days. If Obama doesn’t screw up on Monday he has it in the bag.
October 17, 2012 at 8:16 am
Eric Kirk
Johnson may come in third, or fourth behind Jill Stein. And it won’t even make news. I sometimes vote third party when I’m so disgusted with the Democrat that I need a protest vote, but for the most part in our system a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.
October 17, 2012 at 8:18 am
Fred Mangels
Gary Johnson/ James Gray are official write- in candidates on the Michigan ballot I’ve just been advised. They even started a Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/michigan-for-gary-johnson-2012/write-in-gary-johnson-for-president/376697759074862
October 17, 2012 at 8:25 am
Fred Mangels
Eric wrote, And it won’t even make news. I sometimes vote third party when I’m so disgusted with the Democrat that I need a protest vote, but for the most part in our system a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.
The media will do their best to ignore it as they always do. If any of the “other” candidates get a significant percent of the vote- 5% would be good, Johnson supposedly polling at 6% now- then they’ll have to mention it, if only to blame Johnson for stealing votes from one candidate or the other.
Personally, I think this is the perfect time for the third party vote. If I had to chose only between Obama or Romney, I don’t think I’d bother voting in this presidential race.
October 17, 2012 at 8:50 am
Joel Mielke
Fred proselytizing for the libertarians is like a gay person promoting the Republican party.
October 17, 2012 at 9:33 am
Fred Mangels
And as always, Joel’s personal attacks are going to change all our minds.
October 17, 2012 at 10:30 am
Eric Kirk
The media will do their best to ignore it as they always do. If any of the “other” candidates get a significant percent of the vote- 5% would be good, Johnson supposedly polling at 6% now- then they’ll have to mention it, if only to blame Johnson for stealing votes from one candidate or the other.
He’s not going to get six percent Fred. He’ll be lucky to break two percent.
October 17, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Erasmus
I don’t understand Joel’s comment — does the Libertarian Party stand for something that contravenes your beliefs, Fred? — I can’t disagree with Eric’s forecast of Gary Johnson’s likely percentage.
October 17, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Fred Mangels
I wouldn’t be surprised if Johnson gets less than two percent, either, despite some optimistic forecasts by his campaign and supporters. Then again, he’s gotten more publicity for an “other’ candidate than I’ve seen in my 20+ years with the LP so maybe I’ll be surprised?
As far as Mielke’s comment goes, it’s pretty much his usual. Notice I haven’t mentioned the LP once in this thread until just now so “proselytizing for the libertarians” doesn’t seem to apply here.
He’s just going after me with his usual snark because he has no other way to address the issue of another qualified candidate besides his Lord, Obama. Nearly all his comments here or elsewhere are along the same line.
October 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Joe Blow
Tell me that Democracy doesn’t work. The American people (voters) get exactly what they got coming to them.
October 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Joel Mielke
I’m not an Obama fan, Fred, but I wouldn’t expect you to understand that, even though I’ve reiterated it so many times. I’m happy to “address the issue of another qualified candidate,” since I’ve always voted third party in Presidential and Senate races. I did vote for Obama, because my fear of that loony Arizona Senator got the better of me, but that won’t happen again. You, though, of all people, supporting the Ayn Rand types, makes no sense. They would sell you to a glue factory if they held power, but you drone on, singing their praises.
October 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Fred Mangels
Whatever. I don’t know where you’re coming from with your “supporting Ayn Rand types”. Sounds pretty fringe to me. I certainly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. Read it twice, over 25 years ago. Not sure who I’m supporting that’s an Ayn Rand type.
Then again, Radley Balko doesn’t think Paul Ryan is a Rand acolyte and doesn’t even think Rand is a libertarian. He might be right:
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/10/16/for-the-record-4/
Of course, none of the above has to do with your usual snarky comments. This might be the first time I’ve seen you make a comment of more than one or two sentences running someone down.
October 17, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Ernie Branscomb
Apparently Obama won the debate but Romney gained ground in areas that are going to decide the election…. I know that you are getting tired of this, but jobs and American income are the major deciding factors in this election.
I can hear the fat lady clearing her throat.
October 17, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Ernie Branscomb
I must say that I join my good friend Joel; I’m not a big fan of Obama nor Romney.
It is twice as frustrating knowing that our vote won’t count in California because Obama is predicted to win the electoral Vote.
I hope that the swing states give us a good President… Yeah, right.
October 17, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Narration
Ernie, I think it’s the Reagan-and-after version of the line I remember hearing fellow young boys on my Humboldt school bus state, the day of the election, after their dad’s had been in the union meeting the night before: ‘Brown’s for the working man…’.
That would be present governor’s father, Pat Brown.
Today, the chant is silent, and not from the unions. It says: ‘if we just give the man what he wants, the jobs will be there’.
The follow-on thought is ‘and then I can go back to not worrying about anything about it, especially how it’s done.’
Unfortunately ‘the man’ signed out of this responsibility over two decades ago.
I heard Romney pounding on the point, and giving as ever not one scent of numbers that added up or even policies he would propose to follow. This and shiftyness and the lies, and he wants to be president?
He’s an opportunist, in the worst sense I know, that kind of American CEO.
There’s nothing simple about the current game, and at least in my opinion, far better to have the person who understands that, and moves steadily and determinedly into every gain 99% Americans can have, and with the advantages of a second term.
Not really wanting to put out an ‘unpaid political’, Ernie, and you’re probably right that there will be some degree of gains for Romney out of what he did last night.
October 18, 2012 at 7:51 am
Joel Mielke
Fred, you have a very limited memory, and you seem to value quantity over quality (a fault that I find with much of the blogging public).
You may not have promoted Ayn Rand, but she is the mother of libertarianism, which you have promoted on these blogs for years. Your “neither left nor right,” mantra is a hallmark of the libertarian faith.
October 18, 2012 at 8:48 am
Fred Mangels
I’ve never really considered Rand a libertarian, although I’ll admit I never thought about it much. She did celebrate individualism, which is certainly a thing libertarians cherish, but I’m not sure she addressed individual choice.
She was a strong advocate of capitalism, another thing most libertarians appreciate. Other than that, her “Objectivist Society” folks, or whatever they’re called, are anything but libertarian, or so I’ve been told.
Seems to me your belief in the Left vs. Right political paradigm shows how shallow your political beliefs are.
October 18, 2012 at 9:32 am
Narration
Er, Joel, libertarianism was alive and well two hundred years before Ayn Rand came over from Russia and wrote the inverse of what she hadn’t liked of the revolution there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I just made myself dizzy, though, trying to figure out what present-day American libertarians want. I think it comes back to a kind of fundamental ‘Don’t Tread on Me’, as a desire and as a framing myth of Amercanism.
Only we don’t live on a frontier any more, where you can just move on, and supply all the wants of a shorter life by hunting and fishing. Even Fred is well aware of that, and so were the native Americans who had their quite organized societies to actually live something in this way.
Actually, the most interesting thing to me of the persons in tribes who I’ve been close to a time or two in life, is how they have both a very interwoven society, and_a fierce independence of individual.
Sometimes you can hear both come out in adjacent sentences of someone speaking; in one case a late teen receiving a gift from elders at a ceremony I was invited to, who was one moment thanking the grandparents, and the next figuratively out on that vision quest in the prairie.
It may be a hint how we really need to gain the freedom which seems under threat. Something about separating and taking care of both the things of stomach and the things of heart and mind.
Ernie: got kind of wound on into a story, last night, as you’ll note I tend to do for better and worse. Hope it came across as intended, a thought across the table after listening and being interested with you.
October 18, 2012 at 9:42 am
bolithio
This whole splitting hairs over the embassy attack is ridiculous. What a waste of time.
October 18, 2012 at 9:58 am
Fred Mangels
This whole splitting hairs over the embassy attack is ridiculous. What a waste of time..
Agreed. Those of us who watch these Rep/Dem campaigns from afar see much of the rest of their campaigns as being along the same line.
October 18, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Joel Mielke
Sorry, Narration, I wasn’t referring to a few pro-capital-and-private-property philosophers from the enlightenment, I was referring to the “economically conservative” and “socially liberal” goofballs who have maintained a party in the US since the ’70s.
By “shallow,” Fred asserts that his “neither-left-nor-right” beliefs offer some profound insight. He is, of course, incapable of articulating these astounding revelations, though he cleaves to them like gospel.
October 18, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Fred Mangels
No. Shallow because you can’t get see anything but your Left vs. Right, us vs. them version of things.
October 18, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Eric Kirk
Apparently Obama won the debate but Romney gained ground in areas that are going to decide the election…. I know that you are getting tired of this, but jobs and American income are the major deciding factors in this election.
I can hear the fat lady clearing her throat.
I agree Ernie that the economy is the major issue of the election, and I would be very surprised to learn that the majority of voters are so prone to amnesia that they would return to power the very same gang who caused the crash to begin with – however ineffective Obama may have been in trying to reverse course. If we do that, then we deserve what we get. Romney spent a good part of Monday night complaining about regulation, but it wasn’t regulation which caused the crash. It was excessive deregulation.
In any case, it appears that Obama is retaining leads in almost all the swing states, particularly Ohio. We won’t really have a feel for the effect of this last debate for a few more days.
October 18, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Narration
Very accurate both of you, Ernie and Eric, at least in my mind.
I saw an hour or so of CNN Wolf Blitzer in a local over a late lunch, and especially as I hardly otherwise see TV, was pretty impressed with how much they were following (and to some degree abetting) the line of people sort of tightening their lips and thinking they were ready to get something now by a change. Having listened to the bland and featureless surface that Romney presented on this Tuesday night, just speaking that he would fix it. Its a pretty strong factor for a segment of the population, surely, and for them it doesn’t feel to matter how very wrong they are in their view. That view satisfies them.
When I am most fair to that view, I think it is in recognizing ever more cleary that there is indeed something special, or unusual, about America, comparing it to Asia and to Britain and to Europe where I’ve lived. But what makes America so is not very aligned actually or anymore with the currents in the world as it has become. It can be brought to be, but I can’t see that any of the R. line has a glimpse of how to do it, and their substitute, cheerlead ‘plans’ appear to be very dangerous as well as pretty horrifying.
Watching that, it becomes much clearer how history hasn’t ended, pace Fukuyama, and how the history we all studied as children was made. People and peoples go very far off the deep end when they are frightened, and don’t know what to do about it but violently act out.
On Obama’s side, there is not perfection of instant and final solution. In fact I think the deepest strength there is the clear view that there cannot be that kind of answer, but equally that there is very much another one, which involves putting your shoulder to the load, and pushing into it.
I like where this has gotten us, considering what might have happened. I very much feel that I’d like to see it continue in another term, as the best possible path we could take. I’d expect to see the real improvements show there, and the sense of satisfaction strongly return. Whoever took over from that would have a very solid foundation, and the great benefit of some years of clarifying just what works in the here and now, with the good sense of a future.
Well, soapboxes. I guess the moment brings that out, doesn’t it. Appreciating your patience, particularly Ernie, who is on my list of people who say some quite worthwhile things straight out of their own manner. Sledgehammer of truth indeed
Best each,and we will indeed hear soon what that lady finally decides she wants to sing. And her baritone partner.
October 18, 2012 at 9:28 pm
tra
Imagine if Romney ends up winning the national popular vote, while Obama still wins the electoral college, and the election. It would be especially interesting if that came about thanks to one state that is so close that the result is decided in a recall and/or a court case.
If nothing else, it would be amusing to see the two parties reversing their talking points from 2000. And, who knows, maybe we’d finally see the end of the electoral college after that. (Just to be clear, this is all somewhat tongue-in-cheek since I’m not really rooting for this outcome, given all the negativity that a split decision and a presidency lacking a popular mandate would probably lead to, just as it did in 2000.)
October 18, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Unk John
Fred, when it comes to Democrats or Republicans, I am in agreement with Ralph Nader. He said something like the only difference between the Democratic Party and the Republicans is the relative speed with which their knees hit the floor in the face of corporate America.
I too dream of a truly representative 3rd party. I despise the so called “Trickle Down”, supply side theory of economics which is nothing more than a rewording of, “If it’s good for big business, then it’s good for you.” My dispute with the Democrats has more to do with what they eventually accomplish as opposed to what they say they want to do. I claim no monopoly on that idea.
But, I’m sure you can understand that their are still major differences between what I would like to see and what the Libertarian Party is supporting. I went to Gary Johnson’s website and found that he has several good things to say. But, I really have to part company with him on his stand on health care. If you follow the links there, you will get to a page which has a link that says something like “Ask any country with government health care”. I clicked on it and got to an unbelievably horribly produced video that interviewed NO ONE from any foreign country. It simply attacked what Romney had done in Massachusetts.
There were, however many responses on the related forum. If you look down a ways, you will find several refuting his implied claim that foreign countries with government run health care are unhappy with their systems.
I have to side with those people.
What I’m about to say is admittedly anecdotal, but I’m going to say it anyway. I live six miles from the Canadian border. I listen to CBC Radio Two every day. I listen to interviews, I listen to their music programs. I speak to them all the time when I go there. I assure you, they are happy with it.
My wife is a German citizen and we travel to Europe fairly often. I have spoken with countless people in Germany, Austria, Denmark, you name it. Rather than unhappiness, they express a rather amused wonderment at our apparent fear of what they have.
What they have may vary a bit from one country to another, but they all have at least two things in common. Insurance companies must structure their “basic health” programs as strictly NOT FOR PROFIT. They are also heavily regulated. People have gone to jail for violating those government demands.
You may have your anecdotal references in opposition to what I have just related, but I have spoken with so many that I’m stickin’ with this side.
I hope that people like you and I, who probably have a lot in common when it comes to our feelings about government in general can come to grips with whatever our differences are. I simply cannot cast my vote for someone who feels that the “open market place” is a good idea when it comes to health care.
October 19, 2012 at 8:37 am
Fred Mangels
I wouldn’t expect someone whose main issue might be government health care to vote for Johnson, unless you take into consideration that Obama couldn’t get complete government takeover of the health care industry even with a Democratic majority in the house and senate.
And unless you consider he won’t be elected so health care doesn’t matter in that regard.
If you can’t handle Johnson, why not Jill Stein? The idea is to increase the third party vote so third parties and their ideas won’t be tossed aside by the media so easily.
October 19, 2012 at 8:56 am
Fred Mangels
As an aside, I made a comment just yesterday on the Johnson campaign’s Facebook page in regards third party voting considerations. I’d gotten to thinking about all those I’ve tried to get to vote for Johnson, despite them not being in tune with him on issues.
Would I be willing to vote for a third party candidate that held opposite world views than mine simply to boost the third party vote? I’m not sure.
I was reminded of a libertarian I spoke to some years ago. He went on to say he voted for Nader in the prior election to , “…support the third party thing“. I was a bit taken aback with that, especially since there was a Libertarian Party candidate running in that race.
Still, in thinking about it later I realized his vote for Nader probably made more waves with the media than my vote for Harry Browne. Should I have cast principle aside for the best bang for the buck? I don’t know, and I’m not sure that I’d vote for Jill Stein if I didn’t have any other choice this time.
October 19, 2012 at 9:14 am
Eric Kirk
If you can’t handle Johnson, why not Jill Stein? The idea is to increase the third party vote so third parties and their ideas won’t be tossed aside by the media so easily.
Been there, done that. The result was the Iraq War.
October 19, 2012 at 9:26 am
Dave Kirby
If Nader had stayed home and shut up Bush would not have won and Iraq would have never happened. While both parties are kneeling at the feet of mammon there are real differences. As far as third parties go in a non parliamentary set up like ours they have little impact other than the potential to be spoilers on that rare occasion like Florida in 2000. But then again with the state stooges and supreme court fixing that Florida count who knows? I believe there have been two coups in my lifetime. One in 2000 and the other when Daly fixed the Illinois count for JFK..
October 19, 2012 at 10:01 am
Fred Mangels
Sorry. I have a hard time believing you’re concerned about U.S. aggression if you’re supporting Obama (or Romney).
I’ll remind you that everyone that reads this blog could get everyone they know to vote for someone other than Obama and he’ll still easily win the state’s electoral votes.
A vote for either Romney or Obama is simply a demonstration of your unwavering support for those those two since that vote will have no outcome on who wins the electoral votes.
October 19, 2012 at 10:15 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t know about “US aggression.” I was talking about the Iraq War. Gore would not have invaded. I don’t even believe that McCain, had he defeated Bush and then won the general, would have invaded Iraq. Tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands dead in the name of political purity.
I voted for Nader in 96 and 00. I may vote third party again as protest in some lower office elections, but never again in a Presidential election. Way too much at stake.
October 19, 2012 at 10:29 am
Joel Mielke
“…you can’t get see anything but your Left vs. Right, us vs. them version of things.”
Fred confuses the specious Libertarian claim of somehow being neither left nor right with profound thinking.
October 19, 2012 at 11:38 am
Fred Mangels
Eric wrote, ” I may vote third party again as protest in some lower office elections, but never again in a Presidential election. Way too much at stake..
Not at all. In fact, in 2000 your vote for Nader had no effect on the results, either in who won or the Iraq War.
Looking at the California Secretary of State’s page, I see Algore received 53.5 percent of the popular vote. With that alone he won all California’s electoral votes. Your vote for Nader didn’t change a thing. Had it been for Gore instead, it still would have made no difference.
Bush Jr. got 41.7% of the California vote in 2000. Thus the total between the two would be 95.2%. That leaves 4.8% that I assume were the third party voters. Even if all the third party votes would have gone to Bush, that still would have only given him only 46.5% of the vote. Algore still would have won both the popular vote in California and its electoral votes.
Your voting for Nader made no difference either for California or the nation. It’s highly unlikely to be any different this election. Obama easily wins California whether you vote for him or someone else.
October 19, 2012 at 11:39 am
Eric Kirk
But I gave aid and comfort to his campaign, which won it for Bush in Florida and perhaps other states as well.
October 19, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Ernie's Place
Kudos to TRA for the quote of the week:
“Imagine if Romney ends up winning the national popular vote, while Obama still wins the electoral college, and the election. It would be especially interesting if that came about thanks to one state that is so close that the result is decided in a recall and/or a court case.
If nothing else, it would be amusing to see the two parties reversing their talking points from 2000.”
The 2000 election was the most educational year that we have had in politics for ages. Before 2000, nobody knew what a “hanging chad” was. Now, almost everybody can see in their minds eye the people in Florida holding punch card ballots up to the light praying for loose chad.
October 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Fred Mangels
If nothing else, it would be amusing to see the two parties reversing their talking points from 2000.”.
I believe I wrote at the time that’s exactly what I wanted to happen in 2004. I wanted an exact reverse of the 2000 election so I could watch the different sides reverse their positions.
I’d make one exception, though. I don’t believe you’d hear as much screaming from the Republicans. As one big time fraternal Republican told me, “We respect the system too much”. I agree. I just couldn’t see him and the others making a big a stink as the Dems did in 2000.
As far as those that want to get rid of the Electoral College: Whatever. I’m ambivalent about it as I don’t see how popular vote would be any better when the results might well be the same. In the case of 2000, when an election is that close the results could have been different had the election been held the day before or after.
I believe 2000 was only the third time the electoral college trumped the popular vote. To me, electoral vs. popular vote is just a housekeeping issue or preference with no particular good points or bad points for either. Whoever loses under either system, especially when an election is close, is going to scream about the results.
October 19, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Steynfan
On CNN’s “State of the Union” on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama’s chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror” on the day after. ROWLEY: … There’s a back and forth now about why didn’t this administration — why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn’t pass the smell test, or it’s willful ignorance to think that they didn’t know before this what was going on. Your reaction?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. But when you’re the responsible party, when you’re the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was — this is being thoroughly investigated.
…
When Axelrod tried to tell Crowley that the “president called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” Crowley rejected the spin and corrected Axelrod, telling him that Obama said the the attacks were not “planned” and was “part of this tape,” in reference to the obscure anti-Muhammad Internet video the Obama administration blamed:
CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.
AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that that was given to us. What we don’t need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.
Crowley then accused the Obama administration of shooting first (not telling Americans terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks) and asking questions later, which is what Obama accused Romney of doing when Romney released a statement
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/16/Flashback-Crowley-To-Axelrod-Obama-Never-Said-Benghazi-Attack-Was-Act-Of-Terror-On-Day-After
October 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Eric Kirk
In other words, Crowley had already had her clock rung on the issue, and was familiar with it. Makes sense.
I’m not sure what Breitbart thinks this mitigates in terms of the moment Romney falsely accused Obama of lying.
October 19, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Eric Kirk
Nate Silver has upped his projection of the percentage chance of Obama winning the election based upon the resiliency of swing state polls. He’s losing slightly in Florida, and is slipping in North Carolina, but seems to be holding steady where he has the best ground games, particularly Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nevada. In Ohio despite being outspent 2 to 1, he’s got three times as many paid staff as Romney, who is opting for an all ad strategy and was probably hoping the courts would uphold the Republican attorney general’s attempt to nix much of the early voting. The Supreme Court refused the case, and it looks like the “African American Turnout Machine” has won the day. And of people who have already voted, Obama has collected over 60 percent of the vote.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/oct-18-obama-gains-in-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/#more-36350
So in one night, Obama’s chances went from 65 percent to 70s. Intrade has Obama up there as well.
All of the national polls have the race tied or with Obama holding a small lead with the exception of Gallup which has Romney out with a 6 point lead. Gallup’s record as an outlier is pretty poor, so nobody’s taking their tracking poll too seriously.
Silver and others are projecting basically that Obama will stabilize at the slight lead he held all summer and coast into the election winning Ohio. There’s no realistic scenario where Romney wins without Ohio, even if he takes both Florida and Virginia. Virginia is pretty much tied. If you remove Rasmussen from consideration, Obama has even bigger leads in some of the states.
Monday night’s debate probably won’t have a huge effect, unless somebody performs horribly or says something really stupid. The economic reports are looking pretty good for Obama, and people on the ground are actually finding work. He’s probably kept ahead in the midwestern states because of the auto industry thing, and Obama’s just released an ad with the “let them go bankrupt” comment he’s successfully taken out of context to slam Romney. Saving GM may have saved Obama’s ass.
October 19, 2012 at 5:08 pm
spyrock
i live in a pretty conservative part of california and i have seen only one or two rominy bumper stickers. i guess not too many christians are going to stick their necks out and admit to their friends that they are voting for a morman. so i guess they are going to vote in the closet. you know, where they keep their white sheet. after watching the republican debates and the recent presidential debates, i was begginning to think that rominy is the best lier i have ever seen in my life. but the truth has finally come out, he suffers from romnesia. it’s not obamacare dammit, it’s rominycare. i invented it and i can repeal it. and all those jobs bain capital sent to china back in the 90′s. no worrys, we are going to bring them all back to america. after all, the chinese own america and the banks and your foreclosed home. but no worry’s middle class dudes we have a place in the army for you with the other minorities when we attack iran. not that you will get any benefits when you come home. remember, no entitlements. we need you until we don’t need you, then we deport you. hasta la vista baby. move over arnold, there’s a new terminator in town.
October 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Fred Mangels
Yep. Still quibbling over he said vs. he said. I’ll suggest the post election results will be pretty much the same regardless of who wins. That gives both sides safe haven in that regard.
October 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm
steynfan
Wow, you really are impervious, or just have your head buried. She spun it one way on Axelrod, then another in the debate, then conceded the next day that Romney was correct. Did you really miss that? It was freely available.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021561278
Eric Kirk
In other words, Crowley had already had her clock rung on the issue, and was familiar with it. Makes sense.
October 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah, she’s always been a weenie, but it mitigates nothing. He did in fact reference the event as an act of terror in the Rose Garden. Romney did in fact falsely accuse him of lying about it. That’s what happened on Tuesday night.
October 20, 2012 at 6:34 pm
steynfan
Ok, you see it one way, and Ms. Crowley herself, along with everyone outside the Emperor’s dressing room, sees it another. The transcript is pretty clear, he never connected Libya and terror, despite making 5 separate references to the Libya attack, he never once called it a terrorist attack. He then went on to reference 9/11, which he also did not specifically refer to as a terrorist attack, and closed with a lame general reference to acts of terror. So cling, as it appears you must, to whatever comforts you; admire the Emperor’s splendid raiment, as only persons of superior discernment such as you and David Axelrod can do. What you and Axelrod cannot do is point to a clear, unambiguous, robust statement, by Obama identifying the Benghazi attack as terrorism. Of course, Obama was pretty busy, what with having to give a campaign speech in Vegas, lining up another Daily Show appearance, pondering how to bring peace between Nikki Minaj and what’s her name. So when the phone rings at 3 am, Sean Smith here, somebody help–who answered? Not Obama. He and Hilary sent that call straight to voice mail.
October 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm
tra
So in their desperation to pretend Romney wasn’t caught with his pants down, the Romneyites are now trying to hide his shame with the fig leaf that Omaba only referred to “acts of terror” and not a “terrorist attack.”
Yeah, real persuasive. Good luck with that.
October 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm
tra
It is for situations like this that the phrase “a distinction without a difference” was coined.
October 20, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s pretty silly actually. I haven’t even indulged this whole thing, because beyond a few talking heads on Fox it isn’t even getting much attention. what would be Obama’s political motivation, or any motivation, for wanting to blame the attacks on the video that he would be willing to lie about it? It doesn’t even make sense.
Nor does Steynfan’s last post? So Obama’s people had the wrong information, or drew the wrong conclusions. Woo hoo.
The right wing noise machine was trying to draw some sort of controversy out of it, and it bit Romney in the ass. He believed his own narrative, and so couldn’t conceive that Obama might have referred to the event as an act of terror. It didn’t fit the narrative. But he did, which is why Candy Crowley instinctively factchecked Romney. She came under considerable attack later on for not waiting until after the show to do so, and she’s always been hypersensitive to complaints of bias.
This is a non-issue made into an issue by Romney’s arrogance. End of story.
October 20, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Plain Jane
A few days ago Krauthammer did a conspiracy rant about it, Eric. Since then the CIA has released their memos and exonerated the Obama administrations’ evolving press releases. From jumping into the issue without any knowledge, to manufactured outrage, to exploiting the tragedy for political gain, Romney failed big time. On foreign policy he’s batting 0.
October 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
Anonymous
Ok, now spin this. CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack/?tag=contentAux;mostPopular
The pertinent questions are 1) What led to sending the predator? Who knew what, when did they know it, what was the decision process? Where did the Predator launch from, how long did it take to get to Benghazi? What other assets were available in that time frame? Who was informed? Specifically, at what time were Obama and Clinton told hey, we have a drone over one of our embassies, which is under attack? When did Panetta brief O and C, and what did he say?
October 21, 2012 at 5:44 am
steynfan
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack/?tag=contentAux;mostPopularhttp:CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.
So, who sent the predator, why, from where, how long did it take to get there, what forces were available in that time frame, when was Obama informed that Panetta was watching an embassy burn, and how many protesters were visible on the video? Oh, wait, we already know the answer to that last one. Zero.
October 21, 2012 at 7:19 am
Erasmus
Is “Steynfan” a fan of Mark Steyn? So am I — but I don’t always agree with him. I admire his style and his ability to put certain events into a context that most members of the media are too blinkered to see. (His recent piece on the absurd “binders” gaffe is a good example.) —- But I think the right-wing is off-base on Libya. No one can reasonably suspect Obama of intentionally deceiving the American public on this issue — what would he possibly gain from doing so? If he knew that it was a terrorist attack but decided to stick to the video-riot story, he would be engaging in a falsehood that he knew would blow up in his face very soon — and he’s not stupid enough to manufacture a scandal that could cost him votes. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s time, fellow Steynfan, to move on to more substantial matters.
October 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Joel Mielke
I don’t understand why the Republicans believed they could make hay out of what was, at worst (if one were to believe Republican operatives), a mischaracterization of events.
Meanwhile, what’s left of the left coalesces around a President who offers little more than an assurance that he’s not as bad as the Republican.
October 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm
steynfan
More substantial matters, than, say, a second rate burglary? Would you, did you, back in the day, consider that cover up insubstantial? And before you drive on down a right wing detour, ( ad hominem being about all the left has left these days}and not that it’s anyone’s business, I voted McGovern. And Carter, both times. And Clinton. Both times.
October 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Joel Mielke
Why people bring their voting record into these sorts of discussions is beyond me.
October 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Erasmus
Joel’s comment sums up my feeling very succinctly. Enough said.
October 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Erasmus
I meant his previous comment, but I don’t disagree with his latest one.
October 21, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Eric Kirk
News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.
So, who sent the predator, why, from where, how long did it take to get there, what forces were available in that time frame, when was Obama informed that Panetta was watching an embassy burn, and how many protesters were visible on the video? Oh, wait, we already know the answer to that last one. Zero.
The protestors were behind the grassy knoll.
October 21, 2012 at 9:38 pm
spyrock
this bengazi thing is the republicans foreign policy strategy basically because they don’t have a foreign policy. the only thing rominy knows about foreign policy is which county has the best banks to hide all the money he made teaching us corporations how to send middle class jobs to china and get a tax break doing it. they came up with this because the unemployment rate went down and high unemployment was the only thing they had going for them in the first debate. i still can’t figure out what they are complaining about and neither does anyone who is still an undecided voter at this point in the campaign basically because it just doesn’t make sense. but the democrats must be loving this because when rominy is talking about this its more of the obama not being born in hawaii thing rather than a real issue like unemployment. but who ever said the republicans were smart except to outsource and insource our middle class jobs.
October 21, 2012 at 10:10 pm
spyrock
i am amazed at all the money the koch brothers through an arizona pac have funneled into the yes on 32 campaign. this has just backfired big time in california. i have never seen the union ever be political before. my dues aren’t going to be any cheaper if they can’t give money to political candidates who support labor. i will just make less money working straight time 12 hours a day 7 days a week like we did in the old days. mexican nationals already have most of the union jobs in california and most of them don’t speak english. but more and more of them are voting these days as their kids become americanized in our schools. they aren’t as stupid as the republicans think and they vote as a bloc. i suspect the next move of the republicans is to start insourcing chinese labor to run their chinese factories in the united states that can compete with their factories in china. this will eliminate their shipping costs and they will have millions of new voters who will support their candidates. because the unionized mexican nationals want to be paid more than most white union people because they think they have been taken advantage of all these years. go figure. they vote no on every contract just because. the company has to go over every detail in spanish these days and sometimes that doesn’t work. the bottom line is the greedy corporations have destroyed the middle class in america. and after they take away all our jobs, they are coming after your guns. so wake up nra members. oops, too late, they already have your address..
October 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Neville Ross
@Joel Mielke: Do you have anybody in mind that can compete with Obama or his opponent who’s quite left-wing in your estimation that can get elected president? Or are you just whining like a baby (as most left-wingers are wont to do) simply because Obama won’t go to the extreme of wiping your bottom and washing your tinkle too?
October 22, 2012 at 6:09 am
steynfan
Why Joel thinks he needs to admit he can’t figure something out is beyond me.
October 22, 2012 at 7:23 am
Ernie's Place
Eric was willing to “call it”for Obama a while back, but that will all change if Rommey brings up currency manipulation by China in the upcoming debate. Obama will have no defense, because he has a no record of action on currency manipulation. This will be the October suprize, plus it will be legit, not a swift-boating. If Romney takes on the Yuan it will be a bases loaded grand-slam. He will probably even get my vote.
Just like lawyers get the bad rap that everybody hates them until you need one, the same could be said about big-business men. Rommey at the helm of America could get this Ship of State through the storm.
Depending on how Romney handles the Yuan will decide on whether I vote for Obama or Rommey. (Yes, it comes down to that onvincing America that he can
October 22, 2012 at 7:28 am
Joel Mielke
The “whining” is all in your head, Mr. Ross. I’ll vote for a 3rd party candidate, as I usually do. There are lots of people who would make good Presidents, but they aren’t successful candidates, in part because of people like you.
October 22, 2012 at 7:28 am
Ernie's Place
(Keyboard error!) Convincing America that he can save the economy, Romney could even take California.
October 22, 2012 at 7:43 am
bolithio
Fat chance Ernie.
October 22, 2012 at 8:14 am
Eric Kirk
Ernie – Actually, Romney’s pretty vulnerable on China, and Obama has sued China more often than Bush did in 8 years and won every time. That’s not going to be where Romney can win it.
Again, I just don’t see the majority of Americans putting back into power the very same policies which caused the crash to begin with. I know there are a lot of stupid people out there, but there just can’t be that many of them.
In any case, based upon the resiliency of Obama’s leads in the swing states, my prediction stands.
As for California, I think the last poll about a week ago had Obama ahead by 20 points, and that was before the second debate.
But it all really comes down to Ohio, and if you exclude Rasmussen and Gravis, both of which routinely lean poll results towards Republicans, Obama has held the statistical lead even at his lowest points a week ago. Saving GM probably bagged him that state. It’s really hard to see how Romney wins without Ohio. And this poll out today looks really good for Obama.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/crucial_news_for_obama.php?ref=fpblg
The other factor this year is the Hispanic vote, and Obama has been polling over 70 percent – sometimes almost 80 percent. If they turn out then Romney loses Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and possibly Florida although the Cuban vote tends more conservative than other Hispanic groups.
October 22, 2012 at 8:25 am
Eric Kirk
Here are a couple of links on China.
September: Romney says that Obama suit against China over steel is politically motivate grandstanding.
http://www.talkradionews.com/audio/2012/09/17/romney-obamas-wto-suit-against-china-politically-charged.html
October: Obama wins suit against China.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/19/1146978/-Listen-up-PA-and-OH-Obama-wins-WTO-steel-case-against-China
October 22, 2012 at 8:39 am
Joe Blow
Ernie’s willing to vote in a Mafia Boss for President. What does that say about Ernie? A $2.00 an hour job is better than none, I guess. You would think these jokers would have learned a lesson with Ronald Reagan.
October 22, 2012 at 9:22 am
Eric Kirk
It does look like China will be a key focus of discussion tonight.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/cutter-obama-will-go-after-romney-on-china?ref=fpb
And unfortunately, Ireland doesn’t have any electoral-college votes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/22/1148253/-Poll-shows-vast-majority-back-Obama-The-Irish-Times
October 22, 2012 at 9:32 am
bolithio
I’m sure ill flip, but I’m much more interested in the debate between San Fransisco and St. Louis tonight.
October 22, 2012 at 9:38 am
Ernie's Place
If Obama wins the debate on China I will probably vote for him. I’m on the third side. Not Dem Or Repub, but for the wage earner. The Repubs know that if Romney wins they have to turn the economy around because the American voter will not stand for another “bailout”. It will be hard to believe another Obama promise.
I’m probably am stupid, but not to the point that I don’t know that nothing has been done about China manipulating the Yuan. Tariffs won’t matter without basic currency control. Does anybody else out there get that?
Calling each other stupid” and sticking to your team right or wrong won’t get it.
October 22, 2012 at 10:02 am
Eric Kirk
Point taken Ernie, and didn’t mean to imply that you are stupid. But we crashed because of reckless deregulation, not because of China, not because of deficits, and not because of taxes which are at their lowest rates in nearly a century and the lowest in the industrialized world. Wall Street doesn’t care about the crash. It did just fine by them. Putting someone in power with the sense of entitlement mindset that Romney and his gang possesses would be reckless at this point, and would probably secure our drift towards third world status. I’ve got a lot of problems with free trade, and with deferential policy towards China, but I’m really not worried about the currency issue. It’s about production and distribution of goods and services. The currency issue is significant, but not paramount. We actually need a worldwide recovery, and had Germany joined both the US and China in attempts to stimulate the European economy, we might be in a much better position right now, but Chancellor Merkle is obsessed with austerity as a means of avoiding additional debt – completely to the exclusion of economic development – much like the Republicans here.
Romney’s promise to declare a trade war against China – he’s not going to do it. It’s pure rhetoric in a play to pry aways some midwest votes where economic nationalism is at its strongest. I’m all for filing suits with the WTO, but the economy can’t survive a trade war right now. We should never have entered these agreements, nor given China MFN status. But the tariff ship has sailed, at least for the time being. And Romney won’t impose tariffs. He’s actually not that reckless a businessman. What he will do is continue to redistribute wealth upwards towards what he believes to be the “productive class.”
October 22, 2012 at 10:32 am
Eric Kirk
In case you need to know who is winning right now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/a-reasonable-way-to-judge-whos-winning/2012/10/22/bf3945e4-1c64-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_blog.html
Or not.
October 22, 2012 at 10:46 am
Joe Blow
China calls in American debt and the dollar crashes. Romney is all talk. China doesn’t have to take American bullying. But then, maybe it’s about time in history for Americans to learn that lesson. The same would be true if Romney attacked Iran – it’s a tossup. So, dream on Eric.
October 22, 2012 at 11:14 am
Mitch
Joe,
I left you a note at the Herald in the “Second Presidential Debate” thread.
October 22, 2012 at 11:58 am
moviedad
It is “Orwellian” to hear Mitt Romney try to talk about losing jobs to China. This from the one guy who is actually sending jobs to China as we speak. He is responsible for putting more Americans out of work than any other single person running for office. What gall! What “cheek.” What lies won’t this guy spew?
October 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Joe Blow
Really says something when you can get people by the millions to vote against there own self interest.
October 22, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Ernie's Place
And yet the German economy is booming and they are investing in wind and solar energy to become less dependent on oil. Why should they bail out countries that have been frivolous with their economies?
Maybe if we were more conservative with our dollar we would be doing better. Is it true that we still send China foreign aid money?
German economy
October 22, 2012 at 1:34 pm
steynfan
Joel Meilke Why people bring their voting record into these sorts of discussions is beyond me.
Joel Meilke I’ll vote for a 3rd party candidate, as I usually do.
Jeez, Joel, with that kind of consistency you could do Candy Crowley’s job.
October 22, 2012 at 3:03 pm
spyrock
i have a lot of relatives that are voting for robme. and i wouldn’t call them stupid. they are all hard working honest people. but none of them graduated from college and they get most of their news from rush and fox.
it’s real easy to let other people do your thinking for you and then act like you know what’s best for everyone. of course, they voted for mccain and bush both times too. one of them was probably one of the original rednecks of our county. except i know that i was listening to rush back then before he did. when i went to his funeral, people were looking at me like what are you doing here. they didn’t know that we were related and that old man had been giving me hell since the riots at san francisco state when ernie was still going there. i don’t really think its going to make much difference who wins this election. i was a morman for a couple of months back in the early 70′s. i was baptized in lake tahoe. they had to hold me down underwater twice because whatever they were saying took a long time and that water was cold. they told me that i was one of the 144,000 and a member of the earth council.whatever that is. so either way, i got my bases covered. i do sort of think that they might change the definition of marriage as being between a man and more than one women and maybe let that jeffers dude out of prison. but other than dress up like indians and attack wagon trains back in the day, they’ve been pretty good americans.
but i’m still going to vote for the hawaian dude. i like that aloha spirit.
October 22, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Joel Mielke
“…with that kind of consistency…”
I was directly answering a complaint, Steynfan, but by all means, don’t let facts get in the way of your way.
October 22, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Eric Kirk
Ernie, the German economy is doing well now, largely riding on our recovery. We paid for theirs.
October 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Narration
Eric, I’m not sure why you would say that, though there may be a reason..
As far as I am aware, the German economy has done well by means of responding demand for its strength in precision industrial systems, sold in large part to the Chinese who have been building factories. You would see this from the mittelstand, the famously effective small and medium businesses, to mega-giants like 400,000 employee Siemens.
They’ve build this capacity out of good education (though they also complain) and by German versions of good old get up and go. I used to meet an amount of both, working every day with Germans in the office and across borders there. Including the developing world export, definitely.
They have their own problems with jobs even so, because not everyone can be included in these specific export-lead industries, but have felt that they should find ways for people to have them even so.
One of the more experimental way to do this has been the so-called one-euro (1-3 euro per hour, 10-15 hours/week) jobs, These are highly sought because they keep people in the workforce for the opportunities that show up when you are present, and for the social inclusion and communication benefits, even as a person is on welfare.
Thus there’s reason for Ernie to be interested in how Germans look out for working people, having learned a few lessons in their history. Again, they have some difficulties in that regard, but they do try, and for the US there can be interest in their ways.
Anyway, I’m not aware of Germans riding on US recovery in any particular way. Of course they sell some things here, and gain back as Americans gain back.
More than you wanted to hear, am sure, but felt worth putting on the table. Guess I’m sort of in the mood after the full debate caught up on youtube.
October 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Narration
Ernie, here’s another look more directly at what the Germans have been up to, in reducing unemployment.
It’s a little dense, probably because it was written by a German who wants to get all the details and politics in, but the approach and results are pretty clear.
http://www.mckinsey.com/features/government_designed_for_new_times/behind_the_german_jobs_miracle
The figure of 2.9m unemployment works out to 3.6%.
October 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Ernie Branscomb
I really want to thank all of the people that gave me very sincere input on this post. I don’t think that Obama nor Romney are liars. I believe that both of them want to be good leaders. I find “Narration” to be very astute, and it is good to see my old blog friend “Spyrock” here. Never underestimate Spyrock, he has seen a lot, and paid attention. He is one of those very wise people that have spent a lifetime beating on their fingers making a living, anything that he has to say is well worth sorting out. I most always agree with Bolithio… except when he disagrees with me. “Tra” is a good read. I love Joel’s humor and Fred’s willingness to spar with him. Sometimes Fred even win’s a round. I keep looking for Joe Blow to jump out of a closet and attack people like Cato in an “Inspector Clouseau” movie. Erasmus, “The Corporate Duck” thinly disguised as an anonymous school teacher, was very non-committal for a change, at least he was able to remain anonymous. Jane was quieter than usual, she is always very astute.
however, back to politics. I like Obama, for having the courage to support Gay rights and women’s right to choose. I know that not everyone agrees with me on those issues, it’s just that I don’t think that I have any right to tell anyone who they can love or what to do about the very precious life in their bodies.
I like Romney, in that he is very correct in the fact that China is not playing fair by manipulating the value their currency. He is dead-on when he said that “we are already in a trade war with China” Just because we are not fighting back by letting China have it’s way with us doesn’t mean that there isn’t a trade war. Our balance of trade is draining the pocketbooks of the middle class American. It isn’t just China, but many other countries that are draining us with out of balance trade. Donald Trump is right, American politicians aren’t smart enough to be in free-trade agreements with countries that are smart enough the play the game.
Their are many issues that I feel strongly about on both sides of the presidential race, too many to go into in this short comment. Although I’m not inclined to call anybody a “liar” or “stupid”, I just don’t trust political promises.
In the end, I guess what I looking for is a line-item President, where I can just fill in the blanks of what I want, then trust that they will do what they say. I’m not going to say who I have decided to vote for, because like my good friend Bunny says, a little bit too gleefully I might add, “It really doesn’t make any difference who you vote for in California, Obama is going to dance away with 55 electoral Votes.”
And… Thank you Eric for a fun discussion.
October 24, 2012 at 6:03 am
steynfan
So was I Mr. Mielke, but that, it appears, was beyond you. But your spin was expected, because you are all about you. It’s ok for you to bring your voting record in if you deem it necsessary, but it’s beyond you if anyone else does? Aren’t you just a little self absorbed? That was what we call a rhetorical question, by the way.
jAnd how’s that second rate burglary coverup going, would you say?
Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT
(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
October 24, 2012 at 8:26 am
Joe Blow
A classic example of how a “Believer” actually thinks – Thank you Ernie. You need to get out of your mind and come into the real world. By the way, a liar is as a liar does and so are the stupid irregardless of what “you” believe.
October 28, 2012 at 6:32 pm
spyrock
nice to hear ernie weigh in on this and cut me some slack even though i give you nortenos more of a dose than i do surtenos. i think it really doesn’t matter who wins this election. i really don’t see much difference between them. seeing colin powell come out for obama makes me think he is worried that we are going to attack iran if romney wins. i don’t think romney will do that even though that will be what all his advisors want. i think romney is going to be the most liberal president we have had in a long time. because that is what he has always believed in. it’s so ironic. romney beat all the hawks of the republican party and he is a business man which is good and bad. good because he might actually help with the economy. bad, because he doesn’t know jack about anything else. so i see this election as a win win situation. i win either way. the real crazy canditdates have already been defeated. but i am a bit disappointed that donald trump didn’t win and get to try out his new george washington wig.