Phony Scandal Update

Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, AP and Rosen phone logging/snooping, misleading on Obamacare and perhaps now rigging the unemployment numbers before the election...

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today. “He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

Extreme caution is advised here, for two reasons, 1) this is the NY Post, and 2) it could become a huge distraction over the next month then turn out to be a nothingburger, just as 404care.com is being propped up with toothpicks and painted with an Amazon sign.

Congress should and probably will investigate (well, the GOP House). But even if they find something it doesn't mean anything will happen. If the IRS can snoop on people of a certain political party and obstruct their applications before an election without any major recriminations or accountability then surely something as petty as rigging the unemployment numbers will not move any needles. 

Besides...

...you might be a racist.

Doubling Down, Part 1

No, this is not about Obama's health care lies.  It's about the new book "Double Down" by the same two dudes who wrote "Game Change".   Having forked over good money to purchase this political gossip tome take this as a warning--it's largely sympathetic to the big guy.  At least through page 70, the point I've reached so far.  Confident in saying it will not diverge much from that point on.

Yes it dishes dirt, some of it unflattering, some of it revealing and illuminating as to how the current Decider Guy operates.  Assuming any of it can be believed.

Some interesting items regards the birth certificate and Obama's character in general, but came across the following related to Middle East peace on page 56, which is rather timely:

He talked about Israel and Palestine. We all know that Bibi Netanyahu is a pain in the ass, Obama said. But the president blamed himself for accepting the distorted political prism through which every effort to achieve a settlement in the region had been mediated.

No quotes around the above because it's second hand, but there's a tape out there that basically confirms it.  So if the above is true does it explain the recent attempt at negotiating a nuke deal with Iran, which is currently smoldering on the side of the road in Geneva?  Was our bored Commander-in-Chief genius just playing games with PM Pain in the Ass for fun or was he actually trying to shaft him?

Too bad somebody at the LA Times can't leak that Rashid Khalidi going-away party tape. We have been assured by the Times that there is nothing to see, move along, just Obama being Obama, playing both sides of the fence, the Ayers' just happened to be there , etc.   But it might say something about our current reality.

A Willing Suspension of Disbelief

...to quote someone famous.  That's what Americans need right now (at least those with half-functioning brains who are paying attention) to navigate through these scandals. 

Let's see, we are being told..

• The emails released on the Benghazi "side show" prove that the Republicans are partisan carnival barkers, despite the emails showing exactly what they had said-- the State Dept wanted facts removed from the talking points and the White House facilitated it

• Kathleen Sebelius is acting "on precedent" in soliciting donations from the health care companies she regulates.  And any criticism of her actions is the same as being a Birther

• The president believes strongly in the freedom of the press to do their jobs despite his Justice Dept classifying a high-profile Fox reporter as an un-indicted co-conspirator to espionage for doing his job

• Ditto for the AP, and maybe a CBS reporter

• The president, Jay Carney and a White House janitor were the only ones who didn't know an IG was auditing the IRS for violating the rights of conservative groups during an election season

• The president can never be given a heads-up on an ongoing issue of great import if an IG is studying it--he must either find out through press reports based on planted questions on a Friday evening or wait until the IG audit is done..no matter what, and everyone agrees this is proper

Meanwhile, as folks try to make sense of everything the Senate is busy passing a bi-partisan bill to make millions of illegal aliens legal, perhaps the largest amnesty not called amnesty in US history.

Sheer madness.  Squirrels are darting in every direction but it's hard to figure out which where to look right now.   And maybe that's as intended.   

A word on Secession

Any serious talk of states seceding from the union over Obama's reelection is disturbing and embarrassing, and yes, stupid.   America remains the best country on earth.  Furthering the destruction from within doesn't sound like fighting, it sounds like organized sour grapes.  It sounds like the left making 'I'm sorry' websites.   

Is the disappointment understandable?  Hell yes, but life goes on.  Nothing has yet occurred to go to such an extreme, there are ways to rationally and peacefully fight back within this great system of checks and balances given to us by some of the smartest men to ever live. 

Spin Winner

As we are being treated to advice on why the Republicans lost and how they can win again from jackanapes like Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and David Frum consider the real reasons Romney lost-- he got out-spun.

The Democrats successfully created an image of Mitt as a richie rich boy who didn't pay his fair share of taxes, destroyed or even killed hard-working Americans and their unions, hated women's freedom and wanted to regulate their sex and end abortion, hated dogs, puppets and gays, all while developing programs to round up all the Mexicans and put blacks back into slavery.    That's what got their base out to vote.  

Romney stuck with the obvious--the economy is not recovering and Obama made a bunch of promises he hasn't kept that have weakened America.  They thought it was enough.  It just had to be.  But it wasn't.  The political experts underestimated their business--politics.  Chicago is the capital of politics. So here we are.

Timing is Everything

Amazing, this news cycle thing.  Only short days after the election--while lefties lecture everyone on how to win, Boeing lays off thousands, we hear about a possible debt limit increase this year, and now find out about a US drone being attacked by Iranian fighters.  Apparently superstorm Sandy was just too overwhelming for anything else to make a headline. 

Driving home from work yesterday heard the ABC radio news person describe a 300 point drop in the Dow a day after election as being caused by "whatever".   Today WaPo tells us that Jesse Jackson, Jr is bargaining for a plea deal after winning reelection in his House seat race by a landslide.   He checked himself back into the Mao Clinic, er, sorry, the Mayo Clinic for more 'treatment' after his crushing victory and while these minor legal peccadilloes are solved.   Any Republican analog would have never been in a race. 

Oh yes, the mainstream media did report the JJ, jr story but they never tried to tie him to Obama like they tried to tie Mourdock and Akin to Romney.   And sometimes that's what bias looks like.

Oh well, back to the lectures about how to win elections. 

Finally

Obama must be really looking forward to today.  An end will come no matter what happens--if he wins, no more campaigning. If he loses, no more campaigning.  He's been campaigning nonstop since 2004. That has to be tiring.

I have no clue who's going to win this thing. Gut feeling says Obama due to his press office known as the national elite media who've dutifully helped him dodge every incoming missile for the last four years. For instance, we've heard not a peep about the investigation into national security leaks being undertaken by two US Attorneys. Obama will even tell you his administration has been the toughest ever on prosecuting leakers--yes, except the ones from his own administration. One might think this subject would hit home with the media. One might think.

The press corpse also allowed them to run out of the clock on Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Any one of those might have scuttled a sitting Republican president's re-election hopes. 

But it wouldn't be stunning to see Romney pull it out. He's not Bob Dole. He's not George HW Bush, or even John McCain. He comes across as a moderate businessman with a decent family. And the American people are frustrated. Do a cross-country drive and you'll see a lot of lost hope in the small towns, a lot of closed stores and factories. Things have improved some since 2008 but the numbers don't support the kind of economy Obama is talking about in his last minute commercial blitz.  This isn't a typical American rebound.  It's not Reagan 1983.  So we'll see.

One thing we'll also see--if Romney wins Nate Silver might end up back at the Daily Kos.   Then again, maybe he could get a job with Fox.  After all, they pay Dick Morris.

LET THE SHENANIGANS BEGIN  11/6/12

Michelle Malkin is a bit twitchy about some of the tweets coming in threatening anyone who voted for Mitt; she should realize the left is very good at talk but not so good about coming through.   Meanwhile Obama is reportedly spending the evening with another feisty reverend who seems to believe all whites are going to hell.    Notice that when it's too late to affect the election he longer cares about being seen with someone controversial.  Might as well invited Bill and Bernadine over as well along with Farrakhan.   After all, they're right down the street.

PROPS  11/6/12

To Silver.  Looks like he nailed it.

Now, the questions.  If the GOP can't defeat an incumbent with 8 percent unemployment when can they?  Was it just the candidate?  It will be interesting to see if the evangelicals got out the vote for Mitt.  If not then the GOP may be in real trouble going forward on a national basis.   

WINNERS  11/6/12

The mainstream media.  They did a great job for president Obama.  They emerge a big winner here.
Gays and gay marriage. Openly gay senator elected.  So much for the Chick-Fil-A effect.
Deficits. Obama never put forth a rational plan to tackle them other than....
...taxing the rich.  The pressure to raise taxes and redistribute wealth will be greater than Boehner can bear and he will eventually cave or the Dems will take back the House in 2014.
Obamacare and free stuff.
Negative campaigning.
Local conservative control, as in, 30 GOP governors and other ballot measures.  


The losers were anyone and everyone who opposed the above.  Welcome to Barack America 2012, or as Drudge calls it, the Divided States of America.  The president says he has more work to do; well he did inherit a mess from his predecessor.  

CONUNDRUM  11/7/12

So the military vote in Virginia split down the middle between Obama and Romney?    Well, that sounds bizarre.  One could speculate, especially a blogger, about why such a thing could occur.  One, the military is becoming more blue because more people are joining in a bad economy.  Two, they were afraid of the sequester.  Obama made that comment during the debate that the sequester was 'not going to happen'.  That probably spoke to some pondering an extended hitch.

The Big Picture

The WaPo has a headliner this evening detailing the government's version of events in Benghazi.  For being an official account it's startlingly empty of new information--we already knew the Tripoli folks sent a team to the consulate--that's how one of the lost ex-SEALS got there.  We didn't know whether the drone was armed--it was not--but the CIA report doesn't seem to mention any C130s, which could have been armed and nearby but would be military assets. 

Again though, focusing on 20/20 hindsight and minute details about decisions during the raid misses the larger point of Benghazi.  While this CIA report cobbles together a few more bits of information what hasn't been pieced together is a picture of the Obama doctrine.  Remember Charlie Gibson asking Palin about Bush's doctrine in the 2008 season, which was an attempt to tie her to Bush, but nobody asked anybody about the Obama doctrine, including Obama.  Part of the mystery lies in the CIA presence of an 'annex' in the first place.  Are we working with Islamists now in this global war on terror?

James Lewis of the American Thinker has some good thoughts on the matter, bouncing off  earlier reports suggesting Libya was being used as a forwarding base for Gaddafi's old weapons to given (or sold) to the Free Syrian Army in an effort to bring down Assad.  From one of Lewis' links:

It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what "between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood."

Yes, that would be the same Muslim Brotherhood that incubated bin Laden, Zawahiri, and KSM.   And yes, we've not heard as much whining from the Syrian rebels of late after they threatened to bring AQ forces into the mix to fight Assad.  So is that what they are really hiding with these crazy narratives and McGuffins? 


International politics is complex, especially with Islamic radicals in play, but if it's the weapons thing that itself sounds a tad scandalous.  Something known as Iran-Contra dogged president Reagan during his second term, which was a clandestine operation where his men tried to sell arms to the Mullahs (prohibited) in exchange for hostages and cash to be funneled to the Contras in Nicaragua (prohibited by Congress as well).  The Gipper was trying to stop Soviet meddling in Central America and get American hostages released, a noble cause.  

If this whole thing isn't what it seems on the surface--a stall tactic designed to keep the "I killed bin Laden and have AQ on the ropes" meme from dying before the election, then the lack of sunshine might be related to an overall scenario where Obama helped knock off Gaddafi (in an illegal war), took his arms, and is giving them to the FSA to help knock off Assad (no Congressional approval for involvement in Syria) with the goal of knocking off another dictator and keeping the SAMs out of the hands of the real jihadists.  Another noble goal.  That is, unless we are being double-crossed.  


There's some irony--Obama went to Cairo and apologized for American meddling in the region and promised change only to meddle in the region like everyone else, catching the "blowback" (or as Obama called it, a bump in the road) liberals and Ron Paul always warn about.  We know AQ in Iraq fighters were involved in the attack and they've also been involved in Syria against Assad, so was that the double-cross as Lewis suggests?  Can Americans handle the truth? 

Hard to say.  If Romney had engineered such a thing the Dems would be drawing up impeachment charges. But with a cool liberal in the White House don't expect to see Seymour Hersch exposes or Pulitzer-winning New York Times leaks.  Or Jay Carney explanations.  Or even any lengthy debate discussions.  No questions will be taken.  Just tune in to the Discovery Channel and watch the UBL takedown movie and be satisfied that we whacked the big mole, so it's over.  Time to come home and do some socialism nation building.

Morning Joes Ask the Boss some Questions

Obama was actually asked point blank about Benghazi today by the Morning Joes, which set up a well-rehearsed boilerplate reply...

Some snippets and thoughts:

"..the fact of the matter is, this is a tragedy..." 

So it's not a terrorist attack or just an attack, but a tragedy. That theme will be repeated throughout the reply..

"..figure out what happened, and fix it". 

Sir, what happened was we got hit with a terror attack on 9/11 and our people were murdered--including an ambassador on sovereign US soil. How does one 'fix' that, exactly, especially since there might be hundreds of fighters involved? This wasn't an airline crash.

"..we have tried to make sure the American people knew, as information was coming in, what we believed happened".

Morning Joe then interrupted by noting that the 'story kept changing', to which he was told that's why they have an investigation. But if that's true and the administration was providing the peeps with updates why didn't they update us on Stevens' diary entries about being on a 'hit list'?  Why haven't they reported about the foreign fighters?  Why haven't they said word one about Sheikh Abdel-Rahman?   If the Morning Joes were real reporters they could have made these points, but of course if they were Obama wouldn't be talking with them one-on-one. 

 "..my number one priority was, secure Americans, figure out what happened, bring those folks to justice."
 "..my number one responsibility is to go after folks who did this.." 

Notice that not once during the interview did Obama use the word terror, terrorism, or terrorists.  Terrorists are now folks.  And neither Mika nor Joe asked whether sending out apology tweets or locking up the filmmaker and blaming his film or saying "the future mustn't belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" was part of the fixing it thing.  

And of course the O folks are shocked, shocked and downright insulted that someone would dare question them over this tragedy.  Which means that anyone who continues asking questions will not only be rebuffed but shamed to boot.  He also said if there was some kind of breakdown that person would be dealt with, but ultimately he's in charge, not elaborating on exactly what that means.  Of course he knows there's a referendum coming in just over a week.

Evolving on Libya

President Obama, speaking to a Denver reporter Friday about Libya, referred to the Benghazi story lasting for "a couple of months".  To be precise, it hasn't been two months yet but it must seem that way to him with all the daily deflecting and misdirecting. But it must be working since everyone is still guessing.

Amidst all the leaks and angles some have forgotten the diary or "journal" found by a CNN crew in the burned-out diplomatic mission 3 days after the attack.  CNN contacted the family of Ambassador Stevens and the State Dept to coordinate, eventually passing the journal back to family members with an agreement not to quote directly from it, especially personal things.

Trouble is, they had a scoop.  What to do?  At the time the president was not remotely insisting it was 'an act of terror', rather, his minions were out blaming the Mohammed video.  CNN had evidence the attack might be a little more involved than a protest mob but couldn't directly report on it.

So they found a way.  Several days after the Rice media blitz on Sunday September 17th and the 60 Minutes episode where Obama zinged Romney for 'shooting first then aiming' (which dropped Obama's comment of September 14 saying the attack in Benghazi was different than Cairo) CNN came along with their scoop about Stevens being on an "al Qaeda hit list" and warning about increasing extremism in the area based on reports from those who knew him.  

The White House had to know they had been betrayed.  They had to know exactly where that story originated--after all they were consulted when the documents were found.  They were doing a lot of work to focus everyone on the video, so a day later Hillary addressed the story about the 'hit list' by going to a nuclear level nobody could have ever imagined, insinuating that CNN was lying:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today there is "no information" the American ambassador killed in a brazen attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya was on an al Qaeda hit list. Clinton said she had "no reason to believe that there's any basis for that," apparently referring to a report by CNN in which an unnamed source "familiar with Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens' thinking" said that the ambassador believed he was on such a list.

Enter Anderson Cooper, who went on his 360 program shortly thereafter to defend their honor by explaining exactly where they got the information--from Stevens himself:

"It's our job to inform you of information that's important," he said. "This was not broadcasting gossip from the pages of someone's diary. This was not reporting salacious details of someone's private life. This was reporting information that could impact the national security of the United States and the safety of U.S. installations in other countries."

...to which the Department of State formally replied by calling CNN "disgusting".  Those two events, Hillary suggesting CNN was lying and one of her spokemen calling them disgusting--after knowing about the diary--should have been a tip-off.  But there was more.  In a subsequent email exchange with a left-leaning journalist about the remark a State spokesman told him to "F off" (begging the question of what it takes to get anyone fired these days). 

And thus began the initial cracks in the Mohammed meme.  The diary story faded away as other things came into play, such as memos and administration officials calling it a terrorist attack, but it wouldn't be the last time CNN was injected into the story.   In the second debate Candy Crowley stepped in to help remind Obama that yes, he had called it a terror something-or-other right from the start.  CNN was back in the tank--say it louder, Candy!  Thank you very much.   

Lately CNN got another scoop--that AQ in Iraq fighters might have been involved in the attack.  Back out of the tank?  Maybe, but few are picking up on it.   That's surprising, since foreign fighters were mentioned on day one by the president of the Libyan Assembly:




...which strongly suggests a level of pre-coordination--denied by the administration in the early weeks.  And that brings up another question--how far in advance did they know about these foreigners (other than from the Libyans) and how are they going to be brought to justice?  Obama is still out on the campaign trail saying he ended the war in Iraq.  This isn't about onesies or twosies with drones or SEAL teams, this is about hundreds of fighters.  

Sticking with the coordination issue, we still don't know how much protest organizers communicated before the initial triggering event (designed as an effort to free Abdel-Rahman or promote other Arab Spring goals). One person surely knows already and he's been busy sitting down with MTV and others telling them that "what he says, he means", and that they "don't play politics" with national security and always provide the people the latest information as it comes in.  But if you notice in all his interviews he never calls them 'terrorists' instead choosing to use 'folks' or 'people'.  Is that intentional for politics sake or some other reason?      

Left over in the maelstrom is how our overall kinetic intervention in Libya is doing and how it might proceed under a second Obama term:

But on policy, what happened in Benghazi raises serious concerns about the actual success of the Libya intervention. It’s not a slam dunk, as previously advertised by Clinton. (“We came, we saw, he died,” she said upon hearing news of Qaddaffi's death.) As one senior U.S. government official who’d visited Libya told me earlier this summer: “It’s not Iraq, but it’s not good, either.”

Only weeks before the attack John Kerry stood in front of the DNC crowd and bellowed that we didn't lose a single person freeing Libya.  Meanwhile Romney tried to hit on this during the third debate with his overarching criticism of regional foreign policy but he never got specific (probably due to his own history).  No questions were answered.  Something missed in the Fox News report Friday--somebody referred to the lost F-15 in the early days of our involvement in Libya as being 'shot down'.  Previous reports blamed it on a mechanical issue.  Sounds like there are a lot of unhappy campers out there. 

Where does any of this leave the voters?   Does this event crystalize Obama's foreign policy as one of  'responsibility to protect'?  If so, was this an example of how RTP protected our own personnel or does it only relate to Libyans in Benghazi we saved, or is this protection limited to the prophet of Islam? Do the majority of voters even care? 

Virgins, Vote for Me!

What kind of values is the president trying to promote with his "virgins, vote for me!" campaign? Is this the new presidential? And why does the left feel the need to defend it?

Yes, Reagan made a corny joke in the 80s about pulling the lever for the first time for a Repub and feeling good about it, but that's not even a good analogy since he was technically not a voter virgin after pulling it for Democrats years beforehand. And the lever/knob thing itself? Where are they going?

Tying the Gipper to the "virgins, vote for me!" campaign seems a little desperate.  Matter of fact the whole thing seems a little desperate and tawdry.  Wonder if it was Bill Clinton's idea?

Tick Tock

As the Trump blimp deflates all over the internet like a child's popped balloon attention turns to the emails on Benghazi.  The right believes they show evidence of a cover up; the left believes the entire thing is fake outrage over politics.  I take some issue with both.

For instance, the movie can't be completely dismissed.  Why?  Because we don't know enough to completely dismiss it.  We don't know if Ansar al-Sharia or other groups used the video to whip up outrage amongst their flock of useful idiots to carry out an attack, opportunistically spurred several  hours after the Cairo protest.

We don't know if they were planning an attack already but sped it up due to the opening provided by the movie outrage.  We don't even know if the video was legit or a prop secretly made by Islamists to justify all the violence.  The filmmaker is still locked up in solitary here in America. 

We don't know if Egyptian Islamists coordinated with their counterparts in Libya, or those throughout the Arab-Muslim world, before the fact.  We don't know exactly what the facility in Benghazi was being user for or why Ambassador Stevens was there with light security on 9/11 meeting the Turk ambassador. 

We DO know a few things, though.

We know the initial protest in Cairo was designed to free the Blind Sheikh.   The Obama people haven't mentioned him once, nor have they been asked about him after 9/11. 

We know Obama knew early that Benghazi was an organized attack not involving a protest mob.  We know that despite just suffering a terror act and loss of an ambassador he jetted off to Vegas for a fundraiser.  We know he knows what Benghazi was really being used for, which might explain some reticence (only because the answer might be politically sensitive).  We know that in the first interview he gave of the event, on September 12th to 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft, he answered thusly (emphasis added):

In the same story that breaks the news and gives readers the e-mails, CBS News prints an unaired answer that Obama gave Steve Kroft on September 12. It was his first interview after the attacks. "You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

That episode aired on Sunday, September 17.  Ambassador Rice had been on five TV shows earlier that day, including on CBS, to pump the position that it was a spontaneous reaction to the movie clip, suggesting that just another mob protest spiraled out of control.  We know Obama knew it wasn't a protest mob.

We know nobody in the major media has used this event to question our overall policy in Libya or the role going forward. 

All of which leaves more unknowns.  Why was Rice instructed to say what she said?   Who told her to misappropriate the truth (keep in mind they knew by that time it wasn't a protest gone amok)?  Why did 60 Minutes cut that segment with Obama saying, "and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start"?  It certainly would have looked strange in comparison to Rice's earlier comments.   Who told them to cut it and why?

In the end the facts are few because reporters have not aggressively pursued the facts.  Dave Weigel blames reporters--heck yeah--the question is why those reporters haven't been doing their jobs.  Answers are easy to imagine, even without proof.

IRAQ?   10/25/12

CNN reported last night that fighters from AQ in Iraq were involved in the Libyan attack, mixed with locals.  There's a history of Libyans working with Iraqis to fight US troops in Iraq; evidently some were returning the favor:

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN. That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This suggests further that the attack was not spontaneous.  If intelligence is leaking this to the press it also suggests a level of foreknowledge.  So, will we now have to "send in the military" to Iraq bring to justice these terrorists or will Maliki just round up some usual suspects?    

Interestingly, CNN this morning is headlining a story casting doubts on the State Dept's own emails during the event that indicated Ansar al-Sharia was involved based on Facebook and Twitter posts, which were picked up yesterday, inflaming the story even more. In this article is a link to the story above about Iraq, clicking on it simply takes the reader to the email debunking story. Just a glitch, probably.

The bottom line doesn't change, though. Had the president simply stayed with his early comment to 60 Minutes and not tried to pretend the event was just another mob protest flared by the movie trailer, ie, having Ambassador Rice repeat that honest assessment on the Sunday shows, none of this would be at issue. We would simply be faced with the stark reality that AQ may indeed have suffered some setbacks but they remain a lethal enemy not to be used as political fodder.

Gas Price Paradox

Remember what Obama said during the second debate about "bringing down gas prices"-- he equated falling prices to a faltering economy:



Fast forward a few weeks and suddenly there are stories popping up about falling gas prices, which could "help" Obama at the polls:

In a week that saw President Barack Obama poll dead-even with Republican rival Mitt Romney in the race for the White House, it may have been some relief to Democrats that gas prices have shed 17 cents in the last 12 days. While that could help boost the president's chances for another four-year term (or at least not hurt them), the drop in prices has more to do with luck than with White House energy policy.

These hopeful stories have actually been coming out since late Spring.  But let's get this straight--falling gas prices, which Obama says indicates a troubled economy, somehow helps Obama because people like falling gas prices and tie them to the president.   High gas prices mean a recovering economy, unless there are two oil men in the White House.   

Beyond Benghazi

While the incident in Benghazi on 9/11 remains a political target for Romney several nagging questions remain that might partially explain the loopy, clownish narrative put forth by the administration.  What was really going on there?   Was the initial purpose of the video meme simply a cover story to deflect attention until all the i's were dotted, t's were crossed by the intel folks?  Did it get hijacked by political operatives in an election year?  Or was the whole thing just BS from start to finish? 

The posters over at JOM have been busy digging and speculating.  Take a look at this article:

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life. In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

We haven't heard much about ole Belhadj since Gaddaffy departed.  The former jihadist is now in the Libyan government.  A quick primer--he was a higher-up in the LIFG, "Libyan Islamic Fighting Group" and once trained at AQ camps in Afghanistan and became a member of the Taliban.  He was arrested in 2004 and thrown into the same Libyan prison where former AQ operator Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi (the guy who flip-flopped on the Iraq-AQ terror connection) later supposedly killed himself in that Gaddaffy jail. Don't confuse him with Abu Yahya al Libi, a high-ranking mole just whacked in Afghanistan over the summer whom AQ number one used as a prop to incite more violence before 9/11.

The LIFG itself eventually merged into AQ--or not.  Nevertheless it wouldn't be surprising to hear Belhadj or others were helping supply mujihadeen and weapons to the Free Syrian Army (and their many jihadist fighters).  The question is how the US might be involved.  Because you know we are involved.  Here's Aaron Klein's opinion from WND, for what it's worth:

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Obviously there was a reason Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11, one that hasn't fully been explained. His last diplomatic meeting was with the Turkish ambassador, which seems to bolster Klein's story.   They likely weren't discussing a movie clip or the price of goats.  Klein makes a point nobody else is making--this really wasn't a consulate and the administration has not called it one.  The State web page doesn't list it as one.  At the same time the political spinmeisters are not discouraging the notion either.

Of course, it makes the idea of a mob protest a lot sillier if it wasn't an official building.   It also makes it puzzling as to why AQ would attack what amounted to their own logistics base and why Ambassador Stevens was screaming for more security and felt he was on an AQ 'hit list'.    

Petraeus gave a closed door briefing to congressmen the week after the attack.  So the question becomes, if any of the above is true did he tell them?  If he told them, are they grandstanding despite the fact?  The rumor released was that Petraeus was trying to sell them on the movie meme, ie, continuing the cover story for the administration, which would explain why this is still a story for some congressmen (if any of them know and are spinning anyway they need to be sent home, but it's doubtful Lindsay Graham or McCain would allow it).

So here we are.   We have the remote possibility the administration was exposed for having a facility designed to do something other than what diplomatic posts are designed to do, and what it was doing seems to explain why the administration doesn't like using the phrase 'war on terror'.  Romney will either address this Monday and risk his own blowback depending on the hidden story or skip it altogether and make a play on the large scale policy.  Either way might be a tell as to the veracity the above.

It really should surprise no one if some of Daffy's SA7s are flowing to Syria to help shoot down Assad's air force but it would be more surprising if we were helping to make such a thing happen, especially if people like Belhadj or those of his ilk are involved.  There's already enough horrible irony.  Then again, most of our history regarding the Middle East is wrapped in realpolitik.

Even still, damn.   Are we at war with terrorists or not?   Romney could perhaps take a safer road and focus more on Obama's super secret vision for the region.  Right now it seems we have an Arabia dominated by Muslim Brothers and former AQ fighters, with a destabilized Iraq, nuclear Iran, and a revitalized Taliban in South Asia next to nuclear Pakistan.  In other words, pretty much bin Laden's dream.  Exactly where is the win for the west?  Simply responding "Osama is dead" might ring pretty hollow in the proper context.

MORE  10/20/12

ABC News to the rescue.  According to an anonymous 'official' they spoke with, the 'bulk of the available information' points to a spontaneous attack triggered by the Cairo protest.

Just in time for the foreign policy debate.

WORTH A LOOK  10/21/12

This site, presumably written by a retired foreign service officer, asks some very good questions and provides some plausible answers in the comments. 

HOWEVER,   10/21/12

Back to the ABC report from the insider calling it spontaneous, how does Obama square the circle between calling it a terror act on 9/12--placed on the record in the last debate---and a spontaneous event triggered by a movie clip without being accused of shooting first then aiming?

The answer: he'll have no choice but to pivot back to making a distinction between "a terrorist attack" and "an act of terror".   He'll say he called it an act of terror (and nothing more) but waited for further intel before declaring it a terrorist attack--and he turned out to be correct, making him one awesome Decider Guy! Whether such a course of debate, should it come up, would flummox Romney is why we'll have to watch but surely he's prepared from such a criss-cross.  It should surely flummox the average viewer; 'wait, I thought he called it a terror attack in the last debate, etc'.    

Preventing Disinformation

That's how Obama described his muddy response to the Benghazi terror attack to the man who asked the debate question (bold added):

President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

So he responded by feeding the public disinformation about a movie clip for two weeks?

One could ask why they considered the initial information suggesting a terror act (his words) disinformation since it came from our own folks.   One could also ask why he defended his use of the word terror on September 12th if he was protecting against disinformation. 

Now, the argument can be made that Bush didn't immediately blame 9/11 on bin Laden, yet he also didn't blame it on Salman Rushdie, burned Korans, or our presence in Saudi.  And that's the deal here.

Speaking of information and disinformation, too bad someone couldn't have asked about the new revelations regarding O's past with Ayers and Wright that surfaced yesterday (to almost zero fanfare). Surely it's one or the other.

Wasn't Libya a Success?

As both sides joust over blame about Benghazi one thing has been largely ignored--Libya itself.   The president intervened to stop a possible massacre in Benghazi; our representative was murdered in that very same city in a massacre.   Just a few weeks ago at the DNC John Kerry said the following:

He refused to accept the false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. When a brutal dictator promised to hunt down and kill his own people like rats, President Obama enlisted our allies, built the coalition, shared the burden so that today, without a single American casualty, Muammar Gadhafi is gone and the people of Libya are free.

Would Kerry have used that same paragraph had the attack been carried out on the 4th of July?

If Obama were a Republican wouldn't the New York Times be running a daily headline about our "failed North African policy"?   Wouldn't Obama be seen as a reckless cowboy who engaged in an illegal pre-eemptive war based on "lies" (the freedom fighters weren't actually Thomas Jeffersons but more Osama bin Ladens) to secure oil fields?  Wouldn't the TPM blog be aghast at the temerity of a Commander-in-Chief who would use a You Tube clip to hide his shortcomings?  Wouldn't the Daily Kos say "screw em" to the departed souls because they were meddling in a country we overthrew with an illegal war?   You know the answer.  


As the debate unfolds tonight it will be interesting to see what kinds of questions Ms Crowley chooses for Obama pertaining to this subject, and how the president answers them.

AFTERMATH 10/16/12

Romney held his own, but on a couple of issues he lost this debate.  One, Libya.  He completely botched the response by getting himself into the weeds on whether Obama used the word 'terror' on the day after the attack. He did.

Now, everyone knows O was parsing.  His administration went on to blame the movie for three weeks thereafter.   And of course, after saying "no acts of terror" he jetting off to Vegas for a fundraiser, where he generically bashed Romney as if nothing had happened.  Romney did point out that O went to Vegas the next day but got confused on tying it to a terror attack, and it looked bad for the moderator to correct him.  The other thing was not hammering O enough for acting like a candidate instead of a sitting president.  He did a lot of hammering but not enough.  

"ON RECORD"  10/17/12

Rush was all over Romney's comment about getting "on the record" Obama's claim that he called Libya 'terror' on 9/12.  On second thought it might have been crafty, assuming Romney will be allowed to effectively make the case with Schieffer (and assuming SEAL team thirty doesn't spring into action in a few days and bring some movie haters to justice).    

Hoping for the Comeback

The town hall debate is coming and AP provides a glimmer of hope for Obama with a historical roundup of the pitfalls. Here's an example:

Romney comes to the arena strengthened by his first debate. And the people-first format gives him a unique chance to overcome a persistent weakness: suspicion among some voters that he's too wealthy to relate to the middle class and the poor.

But if Romney fails to engage with his questioners, he could reinforce that impression. That's what happened to President George H.W. Bush in the first televised town hall debate, a low moment in a failed bid for re-election. That 1992 event at the University of Richmond stands unmatched as an example of the format's risks and rewards.

Bold to highlight AP reporter Connie Cass' personal opinions.  She goes on to highlight Bush 41's glance at his watch before a kneecap question about how the national debt affects rich people.  Later she mentions Bush 43 avoiding a demand to list three wrong decisions and how he fixed them.  She throws in Gore's aggressive body language in 2000 then recovers by reminiscing about how partisan late-night comics mocked McCain's age after the 2008 version.

So there you have the town hall scorecard according to her--3 GOP bombs and one personal space invasion by a Democrat.  She quoted first debate moderator Carole Simpson's gushing recollection about how Bill Clinton literally emoted himself right through the TV into viewers' homes in 1992.

So the table is set.  As she says, this debate is for the people (aside from the pre-selected questions picked by Candy Crowley) therefore the best BS'er usually wins--it's no surprise Bill Clinton was the originator of this format.  It only takes one well-placed trap question to turn the thing.

Besides, Romney can be a little wooden in his gait and he's super rich and probably doesn't know the current price of Slim Jims or Slurpees at 7/11. He can't feel a truck driver's pain and doesn't hug his trash collector, and if he tries to pretend otherwise he'll come across as fake.  Obama is also rich and almost surely out of touch but his narrative remains intact-- raised by a single mom in Hawaiian and Indonesian barrios;  humble background, massive student loans that he only paid off ten years ago, which caused him to drive a rusted beater, etc.

No, the landmines of privilege will only explode under the Republican. Romney's main hope is that Crowley chooses a few Tea Party questioners to buzz O about his spending, then again, she could also use those to ask Romney about his relationship with Trump and his comment about his birth cert.

Geronimo Time

Three weeks to go and here come the kill Osama stories, just in time for the foreign policy debate.  Several stories have made news recently, including one about a new book from Mark Bowden, famous for writing "Black Hawk Down".  The book details the hunt for bin Laden beginning at 9/11 and ending in Abbotabad (why he started with 9/11 is anyone's guess, but the curious may want to start with this then proceed to this).

It's getting the treatment by Vanity Fair, relaying the book's inside-baseball high level administration discussions that evidently led to the takedown mission.  By the way, as  reporters and bloggers sift through this Libya mess it's apparent the buck doesn't stop with the Decider Guy and sometimes not even his top level officials--it's those middle level officials that need to be voted out.

The excerpts support the gutsy call idea; it was on a 50/50 shot the "Pacer" was UBL yet Obama pressed ahead undaunted anyway.  Joe Biden comes off as Joe Doofus, the only one in the room who advised O not to go because failure might scuttle his re-election chances.  It appears Joe is playing his useful idiot role to a level that should get him an Oscar nomination.

But 50/50, remember that.  It was a "toss-up".   Which is funny, because if you read "No Easy Day" by the pseudonym SEAL Mark Owen he mentions a CIA analyst named "Jen" who was "100 percent sure" the Pacer was indeed bin Laden.  The new bin Laden movie "Zero Dark Thirty" even seems to make a hero out of "Jen" through the character Jessica Chastain.  Maybe it was better for the administration to have it released in December after all.   

Meanwhile World Net Daily is pushing a story by former general Paul Vallely who claims unnamed intelligence sources tell him Obama knew nothing of the raid on May 1 because he was on the golf course and didn't order it.  Panetta ordered it, and they actually had to pull him back to the White House to watch (which is why he appears to be ticked off and sitting in the corner).  For this to be true there had to be a mutiny of sorts in the administration, which is a little hard to believe.  Some conspiracy whackos actually think Obama waited until May 1--Mayday--to pull the trigger in order to make it a statement of the triumph of workers over religious fascism.  Others believe he wanted to wait for the Correspondent's Dinner so he could first put Trump in his place for the birth cert.    

Besides, a new picture released with Bowden's article acts to discredit the "Obama didn't know" notion, should anyone take a serious notion to believe WND.  Notice the shot of Obama in the Sit room in what appears to be a pre-mission meeting bylined May 1--the day of the attack--which had to have occurred before Obama hit the golf course because previous explanations take him from the course to the residence to the operational room, whence the event was ready to unfold--still wearing his golf shoes.  Hillary is wearing the same pants suit in both this new picture and the famous one. Also, the new Vanity Fair shot contains Leon Panetta, who was supposedly back at Langley during the event.

Let's just say that if Vallely's source is correct America has some serious, serious problems, but it seems the chance is less than 50/50.  By the way, is this his source?  Or this?  The latter's book contained a blizzard of inaccuracies about other events that discredits its narrative.     

So what about the raid, was it indeed a "kill mission"?  Bowden mentions a fantasy version where UBL gets captured leading to an article III court appearance in the US.  Seriously.  Even Eric Holder thought this was impossible.   Going back to Mark Owen's book he claims the stories about bin Laden being killed in the room going for the gun with the young wife trying to shield him were indeed stories; he detailed UBL being shot and mortally wounded as soon as his head popped out the hallway door at the first sign of the approaching SEAL team.   Bowden's book confirms this storyline as well.  By the way, that shifting narrative is one reason Vallely's source can't be fully discounted. 

Owen found it strange Binny never went for his weapons, which were in the room and not even loaded, while having perhaps 10-15 minutes to collect himself after hearing the crashed helo and gunfire downstairs.  He attributes this to the cowardice of some leaders, and he may be correct.  Then again, maybe he was expecting to be captured.  Maybe he was about to come out with his hands up, yelling for his court-appointed attorney.   Or as Bowden points out, maybe he figured it was a Pakistani force coming to officially remove him for some political reason.  Don't count on ever knowing for sure. 

And don't count on having anyone in the media ask the administration if this football spiking and all these films and books might rile up the Muslim street and its one billion Osamas.  

Never...

..say never.  As the ESPN baseball analyst said last night, "you gotta drive a stake in their hearts"!  This St. Louis Cardinal ballclub is amazing beyond anything I've seen in all the years spent watching the sport.  Another elimination game, another deficit, another two-strike, two out situation--twice--then come back to win, this time on the road.

The reaction is entertaining.  Some are saying that Nats' 19 year old rookie sensation Bryce Harper, who had a great game after being shut down in the previous four, grabbed his crotch and made a face towards Cards closer Jason Motte after striking out badly in the bottom of the ninth. Decide for yourself..



Looks like he did, but he's just a kid and was completely owned on that at-bat.  His frustration is understandable, even retired great Chipper Jones tweeted early about the coming Cards demise.  Hey, he was supposed to still be playing.  Instead, part of his memory rests in the not-so-quiet riot at Turner Field.  

This is hard for some to process.  Many fan message boards were lit up with excitement over the Nats' early stomping only to have the same fans go into a sudden depression after the turnaround.  Legend has it someone on a Cubs board actually wished the entire Cardinal team would be stricken in a plane crash only to have another 'fan' retort, "do you want Memphis to win it all, because they will" (Memphis being the farm team of St. Louis, who would have to be called up in such a scenario).  Then again, Cubs fans really don't understand playing baseball in October.

Oh well, since this is mostly a political blog we can't leave out David Axelrod's tweet from the game when the Nats were up 6-0.   I'll have to check Clint Eastwood's convention speech and see if he made any veiled references to the Cards after nailing the first two debates (empty chair and grin with a body behind it). 

Parents and coaches preach this to kids--never give up.   It applies not only to sports but life in general.  Yet as we get older most of us occasionally give up on things after seeing the ups and downs of life.  There was no reason to ever give up on this team at any point, even down 6-0 last night.  Experience, especially of a positive nature, does matter.  Once again they made post-season history by coming back from the largest elimination game deficit ever.  If they make the WS they'll once again get home field advantage after getting in on a new one-game playoff system thanks to commissioner Bud Selig and company (oddly, former Cards manager Tony LaRussa was part of the committee that changed things) .

Hard to say whether Mr. Selig is happy or sad about the new system; maybe sad because the Cards seemed to exploit it against all odds, but maybe happy because the other three teams are division winners--and most important of all, the Yankees are still in it.  Surely if MLB could engineer a Yankees vs Yankees WS, or in the least Yanks vs Red Sox, they would, but even Selig couldn't engineer that for all the money in Bill Gates' bank account.  

Whatever, I'm going to enjoy this seventh heaven this morning.   It's hard not to dream about a Yankees-Cards World Series with a deciding game seven at Busch Stadium and a thrilling last minute walk off HR by David Freese or someone, but that's getting way ahead of things.  The Giants are an excellent team.  Much like the Cards they are underrated on a national level and made history themselves by coming back from an 0-2 deficit against the Reds.  They won the WS in 2010.  So anything may happen.  The worm will eventually turn on the Cards just as it always does in sports but right now any extra baseball is a bonus--even if we get handed the same fate as Nats fans just suffered.  So play ball, still! And never say never!

Pre-game Show

For the big contest today...  Cards vs Nats.

Just kidding.   This is about the other hardball. 

Obviously the media has hyped the hades out of the Biden-Ryan rumble in Kentuck, leaving America to believe the very election might depend on it, sorta like the Nat's season. 

So what might occur?  Surprises, most likely.  Biden is no spring chicken.  He's had his share of debates.  Ryan's only debates have been on the state level, but he's appeared on the national media stage many times.

But like the Washington Nationals against the World Champ Cardinals in the baseball playoffs, there's something to be said for experience.  Doesn't mean either the Cards or Biden will win, only that experience should not be dismissed.  The moderators also matter--think of the baseball games with an umpire crew consisting of lifelong Cardinal fans--or a debate moderator a lifelong liberal.

For me the question will be foreign policy.  Biden was trumped as Obama's FP expert yet as pointed out he's made more than his share of bad calls in this area over his career.   The obvious moment might come in relation to the state of al Qaeda.  Biden's seminal moment at the DNC convention was his quip about UBL being dead and GM alive; will the debate moderator or Ryan challenge that assertion based on the latest news on Libya (and today's attack on one of our diplomatic employees in Yemen)?

Will anyone point out that aside from Egypt being run by the Muslim Brotherhood and aside from Ayman Zawahiri and his brother Mohammed (present for the Cairo riots in support of releasing the Blind Sheikh) that the almost-vanquished AQ still has longtime operative Saif al Adel and "Jafar the Pilot", aka, Adnan Shukrajumah, on the lam?   What about Syria's alleged release of the "Red-headed Terrrorist", aka Abu Musab al-Suri?  Haven't heard of any of them?  Neither have probably 7/8ths of the debate audience, so nobody will go there.  But the point remains.     

Chances are Ryan will stay largely away.  He's a domestic guy.  His expertise is in budgets, not FP, and he's on record as saying he doesn't want to interject FP into the politics:

A good source tells me that Romney's chief advisor, Stu Stevens, has an almost fervently religious conviction against using any foreign policy issues in a campaign. But the Libya debacle isn't really about foreign policy. Its about competency and the public's trust in the Administration. The Obama Administration made virtually every wrong decision in the run-up to our Ambassador's murder. And then, they lied about the event and tried to cover up their mistakes. No Administration can survive when its lost the public's trust.

Biden would probably love to get Ryan into a FP debate and away from the economy.  Ryan will probably try to stay closer to the latter, perhaps discussing the idea of "losing the public's trust" by questioning the latest surprising numbers from the BLS, surely fodder for Biden's bluster.   Should be interesting.

RECAP  10/12/12

The NY Times calls it "spirited"..

It was Mr. Biden who sought to quiet the rising clamor among Democrats that the president was not assertive enough with Mr. Romney at their debate last week in Denver. A day after Mr. Obama conceded he was “too polite,” Mr. Biden showed no hesitation in hectoring, heckling and interrupting his challenger.

Within a single minute, Mr. Biden worked in three attacks on his rivals, referring to Mr. Romney’s opposition to the auto industry bailout, his statement that the foreclosure crisis would have to “run its course” and his comment about “47 percent” of Americans who he said were overreliant on government benefits.

Obviously, the Times is giddy. The WaPo also calls it spirited and says Biden was "repairing the damage". We don't need any blockquotes here. CNN actually had a poll that called it for Ryan. CBS's poll showed a blow-out win for Don't Mess with Joe. NBC, the Maddow-Matthews network, basically calls it a draw. ABC had a piece called "and the winner is", wherein they didn't say. Interestingly, most everyone in the media admits Biden lost points on the Libya debacle. In other words, a scandal-screw-up in the last days of the campaign, which would sink any GOP incumbent.