“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

In tonight’s debate, Obama claimed that in the Rose Garden, he called the Benghazi assault on the US consulate a terroristic attack. Did he?

The answer is no, he did not. His comment was referring to 9/11 2001. Obama called  the assault of the consulate a “terrible act.” He did not call it a terrorist attack.


 

Now listen and compare  to what was said tonight. Obama lied about it and got assistance from Crowley. ITN news is already inaccurately reporting it.




Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

 

Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

118 comments:

  1. The whole statement of was because of, and dedicated to, the Benghazi attack.

    Of course he was referring to Benghazi when he said that. Your guy lost that exchange, Deuce. You'll have to fight This war on a Different front; that one's toast. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And THEN, yo boy "Doubled Down on Wrong."

      The news cycle is not going to be kind to the mittster. :)

      Delete
  2. Obama said, Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

    Obama says there is “no justification to this type of senseless violence.”

    Terrorism is purposeful. It is planned, coordinated and executed to exact a specific outcome.

    There is nothing senseless about terrorism. “Senseless" is doing something without a discernible purpose.

    If Obama believes that terrorism is senseless, he is not qualified to be president as terrorism against a sovereign state must be answered

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama is a trained lawyer. He knows the meaning of words. He knows nuance. That speech was written carefully and with purpose.

    A crowd, rioting over a video and killing someone over it is senseless.

    What would be senseless is the inclusion of this paragraph if he was not talking about the video:

    Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

    This is the meme that Obama ran with for three weeks after his Rose Garden speech and then on to Vegas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No acts of terror will ever shake . . . . .


      Sorry, Deuce; it's right there.

      Delete
  4. The last thing Obama wanted is to be talking about Benghazi for the next three weeks. His slip up tonight guarantees that he will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mitt Romney is through with Benghazi. I don't think that word will ever pass by his lips, again.

      Delete
    2. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

      The topic of the Final Debate?

      Foreign Policy!

      Delete
  5. BTW, that CNN poll that showed Romney won the economy, but Obama won the debate? About 8% skewed to the Pubs; just like the one after the VP Debate.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, btw, Deuce, good find on the video.

    ReplyDelete

  7. Romney should have nailed Obama with if you thought it was terrorism why did you stand before the UN and apologize for a video, weeks after the event.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/the_moment_obama_folded_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz29WRRjZc2

    Damn good comment. I guess if you are debating two people to one and you've got Candy to contend with in addition to Obama you can't think of everything.

    If Obama had his way we'd have censorship panels all over the country like in the old Soviet Union, and in the new Russia too to a certain extent, along with the end of life care panels - culling panels - that we are going to have if we don't fire this prick.



    ReplyDelete
  8. The "long-legged Mac Daddy" won big with the Independents, tonight. Very Big.

    The polls will start moving on Thursday.

    And, the last one is Foreign Policy. That's the one where the challenger traditionally gets killed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes no difference whatsoever, which one of these turds wins, they are BOTH equally subservient to the same corrupt anti-capitalist corporatocracy which owns the USA and they will BOTH do exactly the same things once elected. They are compliant corporate puppets who the compliant corporate media are playing for the public's consumption to trick the public into believing that they have a choice. They Don't. There is no choice this November, as the corportocracy have BOTH candidates in their pockets and they have ensured that the same current failed agenda (failed for the people, but working like a charm for the corporate thieves stealing trillions of dollars of tax-payer's money) continues and that the American tax-payers are left a legacy of extreme debt.

      Delete
  9. A Battleground poll of likely voters in swing states who watched the debate had him winning 53-38.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. Obama’s advantage was clearer in the poll among independent voters, who gave him a 58-36 edge.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CBS poll had Romney winning on the economy 65%-35%.

    Big, very big, very great big big win for Obama.

    Get some sleep Rufus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need LOTS of sleep.

      EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study
      Levi Fox


      Oct 16, 2012

      The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus Reform has learned.

      The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

      CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.

      Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.

      “Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

      That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

      Berry noted his model has never been wrong at predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

      “For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” he said.

      Berry also acknowledged that while his poll is accurate, however, that his model does not “calculate a specific confidence level for the Electoral College result.”

      The study, conducted every four years, is non-political and employs historical data as well as current unemployment numbers and income levels.

      In the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, a recent poll reveals that a majority of voters believe the health of the economy is the most important issue of this election.

      Additionally, more than double of the respondents in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll trust Romney over Obama to fix the economic state of our country (63%-29%).

      Along with the economy, unemployment adds an element which only increases the probability of the CU prediction.

      “The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.

      Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder adds, “the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

      The Colorado model has had such accuracy over the years, these results have received no criticism from academic peers, according to Berry.

      Berry emphasized that the overall accuracy of this model is based on the premise that American elections circle around the major issues. The day-to-day campaigning, gaffes, and political jabs are quite ineffective to the general population’s decision, come November 6th.

      Delete
  12. :) Well, Perfesser Michael D Perry has spoketh. We can all go home now.

    Thank God, this election was wearing me out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. CBS Poll: Romney Wins 65-34 on Economy;
    CNN Poll: Romney Wins 54-40 on Economy,
    49-46 on Health Care,
    51-44 on Taxes,
    59-36 on Deficit,
    49-46 on Leadership,
    All in Favor of Romney

    You now, as far as "Debate Winner" it's pretty close with those registered voters. CBS gives it to Obama, among registered voters 37-30. CNN's registered voters gives it to Obama 46-39.

    But on actual issues -- the ones that will determine this election -- Romney destroyed him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sleep tight, Rufus. You have a hard three weeks ahead of you.

      Delete
  14. At BC I commented:

    Agree w/Wretch et-al that it is critical that Benghazi not fade as the MSM and BHO so desperately wanted.
    Not so likely, post Candyland.

    Luntz Focus Group Of Mostly Former Obama Voters Switch To Romney

    A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney.

    "Forceful, compassionate, presidential," one participant said.
    "Confident and realistic," said another.
    "Presidential," another told Luntz.
    "Enthusiastic," another reacted.
    "Our next president," one man said.
    "Dynamo, winner," said one more.

    "He's lied about everything. He lied to get elected in 2008, that's why I voted for him. I bought his bull. And he's lied about everything, he hasn't come through on anything. And he's been bullshitting the public," one member of the focus group said.

    Part two of the focus group is available here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 5. wretchard

    Without Crowley’s intervention Obama’s answer on Benghazi would have simply been one of several items the pundits would have picked over in the coming days. By jumping into the ring and pummeling one of the fighters Crowley has fixed the Libya incident in the public mind. People forget most boxing matches. But they never forget the one where the referee hits a boxer over the head with a stool. Her “correction” has become tomorrow’s story — and possibly the rest of the week’s.

    And now Benghazi — which might have been lost in the general shuffle — will become the subject of constant replay. After taking the trouble of shifting the albatross onto Hillary’s shoulders Crowley’s ill-advised grandstanding has moved it right back on to Obama’s.

    The principle is that when you have got something to hide or are ashamed of, then leave it in the dark. Do not — as Crowley did — turn a 3 million candlepower spotlight on it. But she did. She couldn’t resist it and now her ‘help’ may in the end prove a hindrance.

    She should have stayed out of it; and then through Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility, the events in Libya would have slid into the back pages; headed toward the end. Now they’ve only just begun.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/10/16/take-two/#comment-223747

    ReplyDelete
  16. Candy Crowley: He Was Right

    Moderator: Romney was 'right in the main' on Benghazi, but 'picked the wrong word'

    After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

    Crowley interrupted Romney during the debate, insisting that President Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror.”

    ROMNEY: 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.

    OBAMA: Get the transcript.

    CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

    OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

    CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

    In a statement given in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama emphasized an anti-Islam video, before saying that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.”

    The administration’s narrative on the attack over the next two weeks was muddled.

    On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice attributed the attack on the U.S. Consulate to violent protests stemming from a “heinous and offensive” video.

    On Sept. 25, the president himself declined to call the attack an act of terrorism during an interview with “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing.

    Update (12:22 a.m.): After the debate, “Romney was actually right on Libya” trended on Twitter in the United States:

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. BHO basically ignored the black questioner re: His life was not better.
    ...reciting his talking points, instead.
    (he actually prepared a bit this time)

    Romney addressed the substance of the man's concern.

    ReplyDelete
  19. CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

    OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?


    So Romney was debating Crowley, and Obama was the moderator. Check!

    ReplyDelete
  20. winning hearts and mindsWed Oct 17, 07:30:00 AM EDT

    It was interesting to watch the US media up to its usual tactics:

    1. Pack a left-wing audience into a room.

    2. Get a left-wing 'moderator'.

    Then pretend it is a fair debate.

    Obama was consistently allowed to have the last word. Whenever Romney tried to have the last word, Obama cried from his chair, 'Mommy, look - that man is trying to talk again' - and mommy would come and stop Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rufus is a bigoted fascist atheist hater. He hates ALL religions and religious people. He has said so many times.

    HE HATES THE COLOR OF ROMNEY'S UNDERWEAR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting perspective, anon.

      Delete

    2. Rufus hate Wakan Tanka he out of teepee.

      Chief Plenty Coups

      Delete
    3. 'snore'

      Buck Buckett

      Delete
  22. The new revelations about D’Souza’s personal life [alleged affair with 29-yr old woman while married to his wife of 20 yrs] will be a shocker in the evangelical world familiar with his 2008 book, What’s So Great About Christianity, and who think of The King’s College as a prestigious destination for evangelical students. According to WORLD’s report, D’Souza earns as much as $10,000 for speeches to Christian groups, which will no doubt have questions about his alleged affair.

    [---]

    D’Souza’s conflict within the college recently surfaced in a small flap over his comments in an interview with The New York Times’ Stanley Fish. Defending the school’s reputation against charges that it teaches Creationism, D’Souza said, “We don’t teach Christian doctrine.” He also emphasized his view of the school as a right-wing training ground: “Our students are not being prepared to enter seminaries, but to go to Goldman Sachs and Capitol Hill and Shanghai, where, from a liberal point of view, they will be even more dangerous.”

    [---]

    “Many graduates with moderate views have not liked the Dinesh Obama movie and that whole business,” said Richie Grote, another 2010 graduate. “We went to King’s because of its strong academics, and we thought it was a Christian school, not a right-wing school. Myself and several other recent graduates have been wary of the move toward the right, and this is sort of the icing on the cake.”

    [---]

    If D’Souza gets the ax, it will be yet another movement in a gradual arc of excommunication from the conservative universe.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/16/dinesh-d-souza-fianc-e-scandal-rocks-the-king-s-college.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know anything about d'Souza's personal life. I do know, because I have read them, that his books are very well written and argued.

      And researched too. There is generally a team that helps research his books.

      Almost sounds, heaven forbid, that some people are becoming fearful of the guy.

      Delete
    2. Then there's that movie...

      Delete
  23. Let's have another debate with Ann Coulter moderating. The tight wad bleeding hearts on this blog would howl!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Candy was Obama's beloved teleprompter last night.

      Delete
  24. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/inside_last_nights_polls_big_trouble_for_obama.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rufus despises American Stinker,
      ...and Drudge.

      No comparison with his Bible: Mother Jones

      anon said:

      Rufus is a bigoted fascist atheist hater. He hates ALL religions and religious people. He has said so many times.

      Delete
  25. In an outrage destined for the history books, the moderator of last night’s hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it.

    It was truly unprecedented and could only have happened in the Age of Obama.

    During the town hall-format debate with an audience of undecided voters, Crowley provided an assist to Obama to help him perpetuate his administration’s ongoing cover-up about the murder of four Americans –including the U.S. ambassador— at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, this past Sept. 11. Reports indicate that Ambassador Chris Stevens and other officials were provided inadequate security in a particularly hostile part of Libya.

    Hours before the debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent to Lima, Peru, by Obama’s campaign to make her inaccessible, said it was her responsibility to provide security for America’s diplomatic personnel. But that was as close to a mea culpa as Clinton was willing to come.


    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/candy-crowleys-benghazi-lifeline-to-obama/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5cc7ec50b2-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag

    In these debates, we are on move away from having Obama ask the audience.

    After Romney’s statement, Obama interjected, “Get the transcript,” like an eager contestant asking for a lifeline on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”

    At that cue, Crowley cut off Romney, claiming that Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror” around the time it took place. Buoyed by Crowley’s compliance, Obama boasted, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”


    heh

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bob, you have to do this to make your links clicky links:

    <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/inside_last_nights_polls_big_trouble_for_obama.html">American Stinker</a>

    American Stinker

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-won-second-debate-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

    Romney won the debate - Dick Morris

    ReplyDelete
  28. Like this, Bob:

    <a href="http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-won-second-debate-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
    ">Romney won the debate - Dick Morris
    </a>

    Romney won the debate - Dick Morris




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's no Poem!

      That's HTML!

      Bob's allergic.

      Delete
  29. .

    Seems like the only thing of substance that came out of the debate was Crowley's performance. Didn't watch the debate so I am only going by the transcript and Crowley's response to criticism after the debate.

    “I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”

    “Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.

    “He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.



    Crowley Comes Out



    Yesterday, I criticized Obama and Romeny for their concern about having the moderator ask follow-up questions. I still think Crowley was right in demanding to be allowed to ask them follow-up questions. However, in this case, she went beyond asking questions and instead began answering them based on the parsing of words and her 'instinct'. And while everyone is pouncing on her criticism of Romney, take a look at the second paragragh in the above quote. Rather than let the audiance judge who was telling the truth, she decided it was incumbant upon her to 'judge' who was telling the truth.

    It's one thing to call for the ball as she did but then you have to put the it in the hoop which she didn't. On this question, she ceased being a moderator and instead became a participant.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cooper: ‘Acts of Terror’ Isn’t a Clear Slamdunk for Obama

    CNN host Anderson Cooper said Tuesday night after the debate that, contrary to his claim during the debate, President Obama “wasn’t saying this was an act of terror.”

    ANDERSON COOPER: Wolf, this whole the whole acts of terrorism thing, I don’t think it’s as clear a slam dunk as the Obama campaign would like it to be. In his speech, he wasn’t saying this was an act of terror. Previous to the paragraph where he said acts of terror, he’d been talking about 9/11 and obviously the killing of four Americans, he didn’t reference that video in particular, but I do think it’s open to debate. I can see why the Romney campaign is critical.

    Cooper’s colleague and the debate moderator Candy Crowley said post-debate that Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” on the Libya issue, but chose the wrong word.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 28. Walt

    Cry, screech, moan or wail
    The thumb’s on the scale
    The press intervenes for their man
    They jigger the news
    And suppress the views
    Of those whom they hate ‘cause they can
    They smile the quick smile
    Of hate all the while
    Insisting they’re fairer than that
    To choirs they sing
    And every day bring
    New paper to spread for the cat
    They clearly see death
    With each lying breath
    Of printed and well spoken lies
    Their readership’s down
    In red ink they drown
    And fear lies in back of their eyes

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tyler Cowen on Sheila Bair's new book:

    Yet her running claim that she had a plan to end the bailouts, or abolish “Too Big To Fail” is absurd. (Though most of these people do.) She should be presenting only the more modest argument that it would have been better to distribute more losses on creditors, which indeed she did advocate. Her narrative overreaches by a long mile.

    Second, to a remarkable degree, she sees everyone else in the process as filled with fault and herself as never at fault. She has zero qualms about ceaselessly flinging mud out the rear view mirror, and does so for even the tiniest and pettiest of squabbles, including ones the readers never knew or cared about. Geithner by the way is villain number one but no one else on the scene matches her virtue and common sense and scarcely a page flies by when we are allowed to forget this.

    She is beloved of sentences such as “Maybe the boys didn’t want Sheila Bair playing in their sandbox.” Who am I to say she is wrong? Reading this book now I know why!

    This is arguably the most _______ book I have read, ever, and I am still looking for the right word to fill in that blank. It is in any case stunning.

    The crowd follows Cowen's lead where She-Bair gets dissected in the comments: gender divide or policy divide?

    From comments:

    I still find it interesting that more women (Tanta at calculated risk [website] comes to mind, not to mention Yves Smith) seemed more publicly aware of not only what was going on, but were fully capable of explaining how it was happening. Also revealing was how easily they were dismissed before the crash’s reality became inescapable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm sensing a great amount of grief.

    Almost . . . . ., almost like "dreams dying."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Didn't the NYTimes say, yesterday, that they had "re-interviewed" the witnesses, and that they were sticking to their story that there was, prior to the attack, a demonstration over the video?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Post it. I had also heard there was a video of the actual attack. That should pretty much tell anyone who wanted to know how it started almost immediately after the attack.

      It would be interesting to see what proof the NYT has.

      Hopefully, these re-interviews are not from some unnamed sources.

      .

      Delete
    2. I don't subscribe to the Times, Q. If I run into it somewhere else, I'll drag it back.

      Delete
    3. ALL our embassys are monitered by Video in real time by Intelligence back here.

      ...in order to keep our Commander in Chief with the latest REALITY on the ground there.

      ...When we have a Commander in Chief that's interested.

      Delete
    4. It Was Not an "Embassy."

      In the modern lexicon, I think such structures are called "houses."

      Delete
    5. An Ambassador w/o an embassy.

      That may be a first.

      Delete
  36. Rufus II wrote:

    "Mitt Romney is through with Benghazi. I don't think that word will ever pass by his lips, again."

    ---

    Very funny:

    The topic of the Final Debate?

    Foreign Policy!

    ReplyDelete
  37. For whatever it's worth:

    On Sept. 12, the Times reported having spoken with "fighters involved in the assault" who told the paper they "were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video." The Times article also noted that "unarmed demonstrators" were on hand, along with armed assailants. "Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults," the Times reported.

    Times foreign editor Joseph Kahn, in an email to The Huffington Post, said the paper stands by that early reporting.

    Kahn said that the Libyan journalist under contract for the Times "observed unarmed as well as armed people at the scene, and it was clear that at least some of the people involved in the incident were informed and motivated by the video." Kahn said the Times has "no reason to suspect in those subsequent contacts that our initial reporting was wrong, and we have had several stories that filled out the timeline of events more thoroughly than was possible in the immediate aftermath."

    "It may well be true that the attack was planned before the video or simply took advantage of the video," Kahn said. "But there is no reason to believe that what participants in the attack told our reporter was false, or that we were wrong to report it."

    Kahn- We Stand Behind It

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pathetic, simply pathetic.

      ...given how accurate you were analyzing Israeli Soldiers in Lebanon.

      You've taken a bigger fall than that by that Balloon Boy Soundbreaker.

      WTF happened?

      ...on Red Bull.

      Delete
    2. Rufus II wrote: FWIW:

      ---

      It's worth nuthin:

      Intel knew it was preplanned almost immediately.

      ...from Video and who knows what else.

      Delete
    3. Our Ambassador was protected by locals.
      (who leaked info of where the safe house was)

      Our ad for said "protection":

      "Transgender Couples are Acceptable"

      IN LIBYA!

      Delete
    4. I never blamed Bush or 9/11, and I sure as hell ain't going to blame This President for an attack on a house in Libeeyah.

      Delete
    5. By al-Queda.

      Which The Won said is wiped out and on the run.

      ...while he campaigned.

      Delete
  38. The "Right Wing Bloviosphere" Knows!

    :)

    whutever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "a house in Libeeyah"

      ---

      A House within which our American Ambassador happened to live.

      ...and cried for help multiple times for some real protection for his "house"

      Down a black hole of the re-election for the poor victim.

      Delete
    2. Here is the deal, bubba (that's you, Rufus). As long as there are Islamic Idiots walking the earth, any American on foreign soil, particularly put there by our government, should have his/her head on a swivel on Sept 11, any year, and our government should have heightened security for any of it's employees on that day. And the buck stops at the Oval Office.

      BTW, your boy got his butt kicked again last night, even with help from the Dyke moderator.

      Delete
    3. "Down a black hole of Obama's re-election Campaign

      ...for the poor victim.

      OUR AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA."

      Delete
    4. I knew she was a damned lesbian settler type from the git-go. Bitch would sway the back of my strongest horse. If we could get her up there, and he didn't buck her off out of disgust.

      Buck

      Delete
    5. The Ambassador "lived" in Tripoli (you know, that city where our Embassy is located," not Benghazi.

      Delete
    6. Nice use of the past tense.

      'just a bump in the road'

      Delete
    7. That's right, he's dead. Because your guy didn't provide any security for him and the others, after they begged for it.

      Delete
    8. That's silly. The President of the United States isn't in charge of Consulate Security. In fact, neither is the Secretary of State.

      There's a very highly paid bureaucrat, somewhere on the payroll of foggy bottom, that is in charge of such things.

      Also, when an Ambassador jumps in his SUV, and goes a'drivin' around in the middle of what, for all practical purposes, is a War Zone, he's taking a certain responsibility for his own safety.

      It's a silly topic.

      Delete
  39. by William Bigelow 17 Oct 2012

    Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

    In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama only five.

    Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

    Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

    And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect:

    1. She wouldn’t let him respond when Obama lied about the auto industry. First she called him Mr. Romney instead of governor, then protested, “there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to... We have all these folks. I will let you absolutely... OK. Will - will - you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.” Romney never did get the chance to respond.

    2. After the question asking whether gas prices as they stand now are the new normal, Obama got 2 chances to respond. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him off by saying, “ … in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to.” She didn’t.

    3. When discussing how he would deal with deductions, just as Romney was about to destroy Obama with statistics, Crowley jumped in to save her man not only by denying the value of statistics, but changing the narrative to say Romney’s numbers couldn’t possibly add up:

    “And Governor, let's - before we get into a vast array of who says - what study says what, if it shouldn't add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again …”

    4. When Romney was trying to make a point of Obama’s pension investing in China, Crowley cut him off by insinuating people were tired of him talking:

    “Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. Make it short.”

    Then she really tried to humiliate him with this: “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.” She never asked Obama to sit down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5. The infamous incident when she interrupted Romney’s claim about Obama’s refusal to call the Benghazi murders a terror attack:

      “It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. So let me - let me call it an act of terror...

      Prompted by Obama to say it a little louder, Crowley obliged:

      “He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

      6. 6. Just as egregiously, when the question was about assault weapons and Romney naturally started to discuss fast and furious, Crowley quickly shifted him away from that and turned it into an attack on Romney’s assault ban position:

      “Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?’

      The fact that Obama escaped all night long by lie after lie didn’t seem to disturb Crowley in the slightest. She had her shadowy agenda, and she stuck to it fiercely. Now it is our job to throw her out into the sun where every American can see exactly how dirty she is.

      Delete
  40. Why the Republicans agree to such moderators is beyond me. It's always the same shit. Stick up for bozo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates...
      Drudge


      What is needed, if a fair moderator cannot be gotten, is an automatic microphone cut off switch when time is up. Time's up: dead microphone.

      Really, I'm sick of this shit.

      Delete
  41. You're all missing the most interesting thing going on right now. Obama has crept up to +2 in the IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll, but has Plunged to -6 in the Gallup Tracking Poll (all the while picking up one point to -1 in the Rasmussen Poll.

    The question is: Whas'up with the Gallup Poll, and what does it mean, if anything?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jack shit.

    Mother Nature created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, slugs, leeches and intestinal parasites. Then she lowered her standards to a breathtaking new depth of depravity and created Progressives.

    Somewhere in the Obama camp the wheel may still be turning, but the hamster is dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, let's get it out of the mud. Let's get back to Jim Crow, Child Labor, Dirty Water, and Good Old-Fashioned Misogynie.

      Enough of this nanny state, socialist bullshit. :)

      Delete
    2. Get a grip. You have created enough straw men to prime an ethanol plant.

      Delete
  43. Why do the Republicans put up with liberal moderators from the incredibly corrupt US media?

    Why do they put up with the charade of so-called independent undecideds?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the "right-wingers" keep getting lost on the way to the studio?

      Delete
  44. Look, you guys are "lost in the weeds."

    What you're all upset about is of no importance, whatsoever. This was a debate for the woman vote. They are taking two decidedly different tacks, aimed at slightly different demographics, but it was all about women.

    There's only One group in which Obama is light-years ahead in the polling - Single Females. These are also the ones that it's almost impossible to get to the polls. Obama wanted to give them a reason to come out.

    The "Suburban Mom" is, also, a demographic that Dems normally win, but Romney's doing much better than normal with that group this time around. Romney's playing the "you'll do better when I fix the economy" card.

    ReplyDelete
  45. .

    That's silly. The President of the United States isn't in charge of Consulate Security. In fact, neither is the Secretary of State.

    There's a very highly paid bureaucrat, somewhere on the payroll of foggy bottom, that is in charge of such things...



    There seems to be some confusion over the difference between responsibility and blame. After a month of soul searching, Hillary finally admitted to responsibility for the lax security in Benghazi. She never admitted to blame. Instead it was some unnamed 'security specialists' that were responsible.

    Likewise, once Hillary had stepped up on the responsibility issue, Obama admitted that as president it was ultimately his 'responsibility'. Like Hillary, he never admitted to blame for the lax security. Instead it was some nameless other.

    As far as the immediate blame, I guess you can put it on Charlene Lamb who told Issa's committee,

    My name is Charlene Lamb. As Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State, I’m responsible for the safety and security of more than 275 diplomatic facilities...

    When asked by the committee if budgets or budgets cuts were the reason she didn't approve additional security, she said, "No." So what was the reason she didn't provide the additional security? Was it because she didn't think it was needed? Possibly, if you can believe her. "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11," Lamb testified.

    There you go.

    Nordstrom and Wood disputed Lamb's testimony, indicating that the decision was made due to politics rather than to the situation on the ground. They were told by Lamb not to request additional security, an order they ignored.

    There are a couple questions remaining. First, what was the actual rationale for not granting the extra security? Was it an incompetent analysis of the actual situation in Benghazi? Were political appearances prioritized over the lives of the people on the ground? We know Lamb was the one that refused the request. Did she make that decision on her own? Was she guided by administration policy or directed in her decision from higher up? It's a month on and we still don't have all the answers.

    With regard to responsibility, Obama has already taken responsibility. What is he going to do about it? Will anyone be reprimanded, demoted, or fired over this, or will this be considered just one of those "Shit Happens" situations?

    .


    ReplyDelete
  46. Maybe he'll just take the bitch down into the basement of the White House, and shoot her. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Perhaps, a little drastic; however, it would at least point to the fact that he takes it seriously. And, given his views on the Constitution and the powers of the Presidency, I'm sure he would consider it within his purview.

      There is no denying that the ultimate blame for the attack and the deaths rests with the terrorists, something we can't ignore.

      Beyond that, we can ask could the deaths have been prevented even if more security had been provided. I'm sure Ms. Lamb would say no.

      But once past these two issues, we are still faced with the question of why the security wasn't provided since that reason probably provides a clue as to the foreign policy views of this administration. Was the decision practical or political? If political was it, as was suggested in the hearing, that beefed up security in Libya would have been embarrassing to the administration given the recent statements by Hillary and others on how well the newly formed Libyan government was doing.
      Was it another attempt to win friends and influence people similar to the ROEs in Afghanistan?

      .

      Delete
  47. 1. Building permits issued for privately-owned houses surged in September to a four-year high of 894,000 units (seasonally adjusted annual rate), which was 45.1% above permits issued last September (see blue line in chart above) and marked the largest annual percentage increase in permits in the history of Census construction data back to 1992. It was also the 17th back-to-back month of year-over-year increase in permits issued, and there hasn’t been a streak like that in almost ten years. The 11.6% gain in permits from August was the second largest monthly increase in the history of the Census data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lessee, Highest Auto Sales in 4 Yrs, and first Monthly Budget Surpluses in 4 years, and lowest monthly unemployment claims in 4 years . . . .

      I think I'm starting to see a pattern.


      It's looking like a "Papa Bush '92" moment.

      Delete
    2. It's looking like you've been drinking again.

      When you are starting from a baseline named zero, any rise seems high.

      Delete
  48. Drudge -

    GALLUP: R 51% O 45% - but probably doesn't reflect the debate.

    ....

    Heard on the radio on the way home Lars Larsen saying something about Obama making a statement regarding getting into those communities and stopping violent impulses. While I am unsure what he was referring to, it is probably not these --

    The following Tweets are just some of the ones compiled by Twitchy during and after the debate;

    - “If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.

    - “Yall ready to assasinate romney?”

    - “Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo Romney.”

    - “Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass.”

    - “I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assasinate romney my damn self if he get elected!”

    - “If romney get elected i hope a nigga assasinate his bitchass.

    - “No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll be #1.”

    - “At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!”

    - “If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch ass ASAP.”

    - “If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children.”

    - “IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED AND TAKES AWAY MY FOOD STAMPS IMA SEND SOMEONE TO MURDER HIS ASS.”


    Now I ask, has this President brought us together?

    No. He is dividing the country into camps.

    Do you suppose these threats will be investigated by Holder?

    No.

    However, if they were coming from, say, the Tea Party folk, all hell would break out.

    Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime.

    http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

    (sorry Miss T I can't get the link thingy going yet)

    It is important to emphasize that these are just a selection of scores and scores of threats to assassinate Romney that have exploded on Twitter over the last 12 hours. We didn’t even have time to check Facebook or any other social networks.

    As Infowars has stressed, we are non-partisan and have encouraged people to vote for neither candidate. However, the hypocrisy of leftists in trying to either downplay or deny this issue altogether is jaw-dropping given how they routinely try to portray conservatives as violent and extremist by pointing to angry comments made online.


    The death threats are being made by both black and white people, emphasizing that merely drawing attention to the issue has nothing to do with “race-baiting,” as the Obama front group Think Progress claimed yesterday.

    It is important to stress that these Twitter accounts are genuine, they are not fakes. Many of them have thousands of previous tweets.




    ReplyDelete
  49. I did not know Erick Erickson was a contributor to CNN!

    At Best a Fleeting Tie for Obama. The Reality is a Cancer on His Campaign

    ....Why the debate commission thought it a good idea to go to Long Island, NY to hear from undecided voters in an area not considered a swing state is really beyond me.

    ndy Crowley should not have tried to referee the Libya answer as she moderated. Herding the cats was a difficult enough task. Interjecting on the Libya story made her part of the story in a way she should not have become. But for all the people heaping aspersions on her (full disclosure: I am a political contributor for CNN and have long thought the world of Candy Crowley even before I had a relationship with CNN), they should be thanking her. It was her interjection to clarify what was and was not said that muddied the water on what the President actually said.

    The media, which has tried to move past the story as quickly as possible, is now going to have to go back and revisit what actually happened. As last night dragged on in the post debate analysis, the initial cursory “he did call it an act of terror” fact checking turned into “actually, he didn’t and it took him forever to do so” fact checking. It was not pretty. And it was a hell of a thing for Obama to accuse Romney of politicizing a cover up, then hide behind the rhetoric of greeting coffins as they returned home.

    Within an hour of the debate being over, Candy Crowley herself acknowledged on CNN that “Mitt Romney was right in the main.”CNN and other networks then proceeded to point out all the times Obama Administration officials kept denying terrorism was responsible for what happened. The fact checkers had to explain just how wrong the President was and just how misleading he tried to be last night. This will continue in the lead up to the foreign policy debate.

    Here’s a more important point: Barack Obama put himself solidly in the center as the man of responsibility. He actually refused to answer the undecided voter’s question about security for the Ambassador and, in dodging, put himself in conflict with the State Department. The magnitude of the lies, half-truths, and redirects continues to add up to a significant malignancy. And we have one more debate, solely on foreign policy, to go.

    The muddied waters and detailed fact checking will hurt Barack Obama over the long haul. A tie, at best, in last night’s debate will slowly drain away — a fleeting moment in the fury of analysis over what did and did not happen regarding Benghazi.

    There was another striking moment in the debate that should not be overshadowed by the Libyan issue.

    An undecided voter who voted for Obama in 2008, asked Barack Obama why he should vote for Barack Obama now. Stunningly, Obama offered no new plans, no new proposals, and no new ideas. The voter clearly said he wasn’t impressed with the past four years, but that’s all Obama had to offer. Then Romney countered. It was a magical moment of fact telling, just hitting the low notes of Barack Obama’s record. Obama clearly wanted to respond, but he could not. There was no time.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Obama Camp Circling the Wagons Around Ohio, Iowa, N.H., & Nevada
    Giving Up on Florida, Virginia, N.C.?
    Wisconsin (Marquette): Obama +1
    GOP Gains Momentum in Iowa

    RCP

    ReplyDelete
  51. In the Rufus/Obama Alternate Reality World, things are going so well that gas prices are skyrocketing because the economy is improving so dramatically.

    Rufus has the excuse that he is drinking, but what is Obama on to make such a statement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the debate last night, against all evidence, Barack Obama claimed that gas prices are skyrocketing because the economy is improving. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

      http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/17/obama-lectures-romney-on-cargo-cult-economics/

      Delete
    2. Gasoline was $4.11/gal on July 11, 2008 - right before the Republican Banksters blew up the entire World's Economy.

      Delete
    3. Fanny and Freddie blew up our economy. Just as George Bush warned they would do, eight times.

      Delete
    4. You mean, when he wasn't prancing around the stage promoting the "Ownership Society?"

      Delete
    5. :)

      You are suggesting he spoke out of both sides of his mouth?

      So that must be where Obama picked up the habit, refined it, and took it to new heights?

      Delete
    6. This is called 'political progress'.

      Delete
    7. Give one half point to Rufus for the connection between the economy and the gas prices.

      However we still have a stinking economy and now gas prices are high.

      World demand does come into play.

      And it just might help if we would, you know, do something.

      Other than subsidize wind mills to the tune of 90 billion.

      Like - drill.

      Like, put Palin in as Secretary of Energy.

      Delete
    8. .

      To try to make a point about gasoline prices in general on the basis of two specific days five years apart is ridiculous. It's merely playing with the numbers.

      It was wrong for Romney to try to make the point and it was wrong for Obama to use his supply/demand point. And it is wrong for others here trying to make either point.

      Here is what happened to oil and gas prices throughout 2008.

      And here are the average prices over the past five years.

      .

      Delete
  52. Josh Trevino left Red State due to differences with Erick Erickson. Don't know what they were. He still contributes I think.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alaska - same slope

    Gulf of Mexico - Yep

    Venezuela/Iran - same same

    Indonesia/Nigeria/UK/

    Argentina/Azerbaijan/Mexico

    Same old song

    Russia's peaked, China's peaked, Saudi Arabia's peaked

    California slope looks like Alaska, and North Dakota will peak in just a few months.

    It's going to be a mess, real soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a decade ago, the North Sea Countries (Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, and the UK) were the "Saviors of the World."

      Next year, they will be Net Importers of oil.

      Delete
    2. Paris: The combined wealth of all individuals has fallen this year for the first time since the financial crisis of 2007-08, with a drop in austerity-hit Europe outweighing a small increase in China, a Credit Suisse report has found.

      The study found the wealth of all individuals - defined as assets such as income, real estate, savings and investments less debt - fell 5 percent in dollar terms to $223 trillion by mid-2012 from the same time the year before.

      Delete
    3. This has been/is the "oil age." As the availability of oil peaks, and then starts to decline the result is predictable.

      It will be falling dominoes. It looks like Europe is first. Probably, the only question, now, is "who is second?"

      Delete
  54. Rufus once said 'without the 2nd Amendment you've got nothing' (if not exact, really close) -

    Obama Hints At Handgun Restrictions Too

    The National Rifle Association, jumping on President Obama's new and firm support for a Clinton-style assault weapons ban, is stepping up its attack on the president in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin with a new "we told you so" theme.

    David Keene, president of the NRA, told Secrets, "the president has ratified what we have been saying" in ads and mailings to pro-gun voters. "See, he peeked out and finally said what he wants," said Keene.

    In his 2008 campaign and while president, Obama has distanced himself from gun issues, aware that it could hurt him politically in key battleground states. But when pressed about gun violence during the Tuesday town hall-style presidential debate, he fully embraced a Clinton-style assault weapons ban. Clinton's ban expired in 2004.

    Suggesting a ban not just on semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 but maybe even handguns, the most popular rifle in America, the president said, "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap handguns."

    Keene said that Obama's statement was a "strategic error on his part" because it blew up the president's pro-Second Amendment rhetoric. "He knows it's politically dangerous to take on the Second Amendment," said Keene.

    "We have credibility when we say that Barack Obama is a threat to your rights. But that credibility is obviously enhanced 10-fold when Barack Obama, in a moment of weakness, says, 'Yeah, as a matter of fact I am.' And that's what he did," said Keene. "This is going to help us."

    The NRA is blanketing Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin with advocacy mailings and ads, hopeful of persuading the vast majority of pro-gun, non-NRA members to vote for Romney. They made a similar effort during the recent Wisconsin gubernatorial recall effort and several analysts credited the NRA with helping to save Gov. Scott Walker.

    "We can move the race a couple of points," said Keene.


    I recall the testimony of John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) that Obama said to him people should not have any guns.

    I recall to, that through out history, totalitarian governments always go after the weapons of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  55. So far, the only candidate for President to have signed an assault weapons ban is Mitt Romney.

    While, the only thing Obama has done is make it legal to "carry" on an Amtrac train, and in National Parks.

    ReplyDelete
  56. CAIRO — Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, last month, Libyans involved in the investigation said on Wednesday.

    ReplyDelete