2012 Elections

[Rip]

Perhaps if you had a son who was there and his boss had been pleading for more security for months before they were attacked and killed you would feel a little more outrage?

Perhaps. But I don't. So I don't get it. And 99.9999% of the people complaining didn't have a son was there either. I mean, I get it in the context of understanding why the people here complaining are complaining. But outside of that, I don't get. Especially when Holman was talking about the words used (and when) to describe the attack, and not the thing you are talking about here (which is a separate issue and which presents a plausible outrage factor).

I could care less about the words. It is the actions, or lack of that upset me.

[Rip]

Perhaps if you had a son who was there and his boss had been pleading for more security for months before they were attacked and killed you would feel a little more outrage?

I'm trying to get the story straight: the idea is that the State Department and the administration were doing nothing for the security of their people in Libya? And the mob violence interpretation of events was really a conspiracy to hide the administration's naive assumption that there was no danger whatsoever in Libya, a country pulled into factions by a recent bloody revolution and obviously a volatile hotspot?

I think "intelligence error in a confusing and dangerous part of the world" makes a lot more sense.

If the area is so bad then why on earth would you have made major cuts to security forces?

[RLMullen]

I still don't get the OUTRAGE.

There was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. It happened after days of mob violence across the Arab world that had embassy staffs everywhere on edge, so it was easy to assume that the attack coming in was a particularly violent expression of what was already being seen elsewhere. Initial reports were confused, a story stuck, and it took on narrative life of its own, lasting longer than it should have. Later it was corrected.

The attack happened after HOURS of mob violence in Cairo. The spontaneous protests over the film didn't spread to other countries until AFTER the Benghazi attack. There was never any protest in Libya on 9/11/12. In fact Ambassador Stevens held many meeting during that day at the Benghazi compound... people came and went all during the day... there were no angry mobs burning flags. The attack on the Benghazi compound began around 9:30 PM local time.

Washington Post article outlining the Benghazi attack

Furthermore, Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State, testified before congress that they were alerted to the attack when it began and then monitored it in real-time.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/u ... FINAL1.pdf

When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center
immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency
announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S.
quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy
Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I
could follow what was happening in almost real-time.

There is simply no way that President Obama DIDN'T know what happened in Benghazi, and that it was a planned terrorist attack. If he didn't then he is completely inept. I believe he did know, and he and his staff deliberately lied about it for two weeks hoping they could make it disappear behind the smoke screen of the other spontaneous protests. This is the reason for the OUTRAGE!

Another thing that disturbs me is the sheer number of smart, and usually well informed people who are completely clueless about this incident. Congressional testimony was 10 days ago, and there are still folks in this very thread who are poo-pooing the whole thing like it's no big deal.

[Alefroth]

What's to be gained by having us believe the attack was planned by religious zealots who hate us for our freedoms, rather than a spontaneous attack by religious zealots who hate us because we made fun of their prophet? I don't understand what the conspiracy is.

Ale

[Defiant]

Salt Lake Tribune agrees; endorses Obama. Yeah, that Salt Lake. The one in Utah.

The one that endorsed him in 2008? Shocking.

[Kraken]

Salt Lake Tribune agrees; endorses Obama. Yeah, that Salt Lake. The one in Utah.

The one that endorsed him in 2008? Shocking.

Utah didn't have a favorite son on the ballot in 2008.

[Chrisoc13]

Salt Lake Tribune agrees; endorses Obama. Yeah, that Salt Lake. The one in Utah.

The one that endorsed him in 2008? Shocking.

Utah didn't have a favorite son on the ballot in 2008.

Salt lake has two news papers. One owned by the lds church (deseret news), the other (the tribune) does everything it can to be the opposite. This isn't a surprise. It would be far more shocking if it had endorsed Romney. As shocking as if fox news endorsed obama.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Holman]

There is simply no way that President Obama DIDN'T know what happened in Benghazi, and that it was a planned terrorist attack. If he didn't then he is completely inept. I believe he did know, and he and his staff deliberately lied about it for two weeks hoping they could make it disappear behind the smoke screen of the other spontaneous protests. This is the reason for the OUTRAGE!

Another thing that disturbs me is the sheer number of smart, and usually well informed people who are completely clueless about this incident. Congressional testimony was 10 days ago, and there are still folks in this very thread who are poo-pooing the whole thing like it's no big deal.

I'm honestly still confused about the outrage. I think it has something to do with the election being two weeks out.

Let's take the worst-case scenario: it was known at the time to be a terrorist attack but was presented as mob violence. What does Obama have to gain from this coverup? Especially when the supposed coverup wasn't exposed by some intrepid Woodward-Bernstein but by the administration itself announcing a change in its understanding of what happened?

I suppose it's possible to imagine a president so obsessed with the appearance of flawless performance that he would say ANYTHING to give that illusion, but that doesn't hold up with the administration itself admitting the earlier misinterpretation. The rule is always "It's not the crime, it's the coverup." But for there to be a coverup, doesn't there have to be a crime in the first place? Confusion and misinterpretation don't count, especially in the present war.

Everyone expected mob violence everywhere. Even if it had only just erupted in Cairo hours earlier, as you say, it had been foreseen and threatened everywhere for days--Cairo only confirmed this expectation. Plus we're dealing with Libya, which is totally awash in serious firepower from the civil war. If spontaneous violence rather than well-armed terrorism erupted in militia-ridden Libya, would you even be able to tell the difference on the spot?

The most obvious explanation is fog of war followed by an administration sticking to its story longer than it should have. There were real mistakes, and it's disgusting that people died in the attack. But trying to spin this event as "Obama doesn't know what he's doing in the war on terror" just doesn't fit with everything we've seen in the past four years.

[RLMullen]

I'm honestly still confused about the outrage. I think it has something to do with the election being two weeks out.

The election is certainly an aggravating factor, but there would be plenty of outrage regardless.

Let's take the worst-case scenario: it was known at the time to be a terrorist attack but was presented as mob violence. What does Obama have to gain from this coverup?

Obama gains the luxury of not having to answer a bunch of damaging questions until after the election. There is a ton of evidence that the administration, whether it was the State Dept. or the White House, deliberately ignored the security situation in the face of plenty of evidence that the consulate in Benghazi was a definite target for a terror op. The evidence continues to pile up http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/19/world ... documents/. This is not the kind of shit that an incumbent president wants to explain in the weeks leading up to an election.

Especially when the supposed coverup wasn't exposed by some intrepid Woodward-Bernstein but by the administration itself announcing a change in its understanding of what happened?

Here is where you are wrong, and this is a contributing factor to the outrage. Within days of the attack Catherine Herridge at FoxNews (oh noes!!) began uncovering emails regarding security concerns in Benghazi, and a few days later current and former State Dept. officials started popping up with the claim that the Benghazi attack was deliberate and planned. The administration didn't just announce a change in its understanding, it was forced to change in the face of relentless questioning and mounting evidence that was becoming available to the public.

I suppose it's possible to imagine a president so obsessed with the appearance of flawless performance that he would say ANYTHING to give that illusion, but that doesn't hold up with the administration itself admitting the earlier misinterpretation. The rule is always "It's not the crime, it's the coverup." But for there to be a coverup, doesn't there have to be a crime in the first place? Confusion and misinterpretation don't count, especially in the present war.

Really? You can't see how a president in an election year two months from the election would rather have an embarrassing, damaging incident fade into the background of the constant news cycle? Are you being deliberately naive or is it just bias?

Everyone expected mob violence everywhere. Even if it had only just erupted in Cairo hours earlier, as you say, it had been expected and threatened everywhere for days--Cairo only confirmed this expectation. Plus we're dealing with Libya, which is totally awash in serious firepower from the civil war. If spontaneous violence rather than well-armed terrorism erupted in militia-riddled Libya, would you even be able to tell the difference on the spot?

Would I be able to tell the difference on the spot? No. Would a trained security professional, one who has the background information and experience in the area, be able to tell the difference on the spot? Absolutely!! For that matter, I knew it was a planned attack a few days after the incident, and that came from simply paying attention to the actual reports coming from Benghazi versus the coverage from the areas where there were spontaneous demonstrations.

The most obvious explanation is fog of war followed by an administration sticking to its story longer than it should have.

No, the most obvious explanation is that the administration fucked up badly, and they were hoping to keep their fuck-up under wraps until sometime after the second Tuesday in November.

[Holman]

The most obvious explanation is fog of war followed by an administration sticking to its story longer than it should have.

No, the most obvious explanation is that the administration fucked up badly, and they were hoping to keep their fuck-up under wraps until sometime after the second Tuesday in November.

I think I see the administration owning up to intelligence errors and taking responsibility. It isn't pretty, and it's embarrassing as it should be, but it's hardly bring-down-the-president embarrassing, and it's hardly a cover-up.

Meanwhile, in the effort to further politicize Benghazi, GOP hero Darrell Issa publicly released sensitive State Department documents that reveal the identities of Libyans working for the U.S. government, pretty much marking them for assassination.

[RLMullen]

The most obvious explanation is fog of war followed by an administration sticking to its story longer than it should have.

No, the most obvious explanation is that the administration fucked up badly, and they were hoping to keep their fuck-up under wraps until sometime after the second Tuesday in November.

I think I see the administration owning up to intelligence errors and taking responsibility. It isn't pretty, and it's embarrassing as it should be, but it's hardly bring-down-the-president embarrassing, and it's hardly a cover-up.

You see an administration that is forced into owning up to *its* errors, and that is hardly the definition of taking responsibility. As to whether it is "bring-down-the-president" embarrassing, it's nothing worth an impeachment or resignation, but it is certainly worth considering when casting a vote. This will have an effect on the election, and the administration's handling of the incident only magnifies the negatives.

Meanwhile, in the effort to further politicize Benghazi, GOP hero Darrell Issa publicly released sensitive State Department documents that reveal the identities of Libyans working for the U.S. government, pretty much marking them for assassination.

It's a good thing Issa isn't running for president.

As far as "politicizing" the incident goes, this incident is directly related to the President's performance in his job. How is this not political? Why shouldn't a political opponent point out this failure as a reason that voters shouldn't vote for him again?

[Freezer-TPF-]

Meanwhile, in the effort to further politicize Benghazi, GOP hero Darrell Issa publicly released sensitive State Department documents that reveal the identities of Libyans working for the U.S. government, pretty much marking them for assassination.

Just like Romney's press conference--a rush to do anything that may hurt Obama without fully considering (or worse, not caring about) the consequences.

[Rip]

Meanwhile, in the effort to further politicize Benghazi, GOP hero Darrell Issa publicly released sensitive State Department documents that reveal the identities of Libyans working for the U.S. government, pretty much marking them for assassination.

Just like Romney's press conference--a rush to do anything that may hurt Obama without fully considering (or worse, not caring about) the consequences.

Versus administration press conferences that rush to say anything that prevents hurting Obama. While dry old paperwork like stimulus reports just quietly cease to be released.

[Grundbegriff]

Never fear. The collaborationist Libyans whose identities were divulged will be given embassy-quality protection.

[Rip]

The most obvious explanation is fog of war followed by an administration sticking to its story longer than it should have.

No, the most obvious explanation is that the administration fucked up badly, and they were hoping to keep their fuck-up under wraps until sometime after the second Tuesday in November.

I think I see the administration owning up to intelligence errors and taking responsibility. It isn't pretty, and it's embarrassing as it should be, but it's hardly bring-down-the-president embarrassing, and it's hardly a cover-up.

Meanwhile, in the effort to further politicize Benghazi, GOP hero Darrell Issa publicly released sensitive State Department documents that reveal the identities of Libyans working for the U.S. government, pretty much marking them for assassination.

Not like he expected the guy who allowed the collaborator that handed him OBL to be outed, jailed, and who knows what next while handing oodles of cash to his captors would care.

[Teggy]

Fairly safe to say this is the bloodiest campaign ad every made? NSFW or easily frightened children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZxkj-WPH4I" target="_blank

(Guy I know from college days is the the one in the last shot)

[Exodor]

CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

[GreenGoo]

Spontaneously hit the safe house, murdering the Ambassador while leaving everything alone between the safe house and the embassy. CIA might want to work on it's intel.

We've been over this a bunch of times.

The original protests were inspired by Cairo and spontaneous. The extremists used this protest as cover for putting their plan into action. Essentially moving their go date to the day of the protests.

Wasn't this reported like in the first few days of the assassination? Which is why the administration's insistence that it was just some rowdy Muslims was insulting.

How hard is it to just come out and say that?

[cheeba]

Wow is it rare for me to agree with Goo on something .

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Fairly safe to say this is the bloodiest campaign ad every made? NSFW or easily frightened children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZxkj-WPH4I" target="_blank

(Guy I know from college days is the the one in the last shot)

The bloodiest and perhaps the worst campaign ad ever made. That was some high school level production quality, right there.

[Holman]

Spontaneously hit the safe house, murdering the Ambassador while leaving everything alone between the safe house and the embassy. CIA might want to work on it's intel.

Either the CIA is part of the grand conspiracy, or Benghazi was a confused, foggy situation that looks a lot clearer from the distance of punditry than it did as it was happening.

[GreenGoo]

Spontaneously hit the safe house, murdering the Ambassador while leaving everything alone between the safe house and the embassy. CIA might want to work on it's intel.

Either the CIA is part of the grand conspiracy, or Benghazi was a confused, foggy situation that looks a lot clearer from the distance of punditry than it did as it was happening.

What's really weird is that the media, through iterative reporting, got it right long before the administration stopped insisting that this was all movie related. It's almost like the media did it's job this time. At which point, you need to re-evaluate your stance as an administration.

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's just spin gone wrong.

If I, a Canadian on the other side of the world, "know" that a "safe house" (not very safe as it turns out) was hit simultaneously with the Embassy, and that an Ambassador and his personal retinue were assassinated (leaving everyone else alive), that rocket propelled grenades were used (not standard issue for regular citizens, the supposed protestors) and that there seemed to be 2 distinct groups, long before the administration stopped spouting on about how a movie caused the attack (vaguely half true, due to the original protest) and deaths (not even close to being true), then I think either the CIA has released only part of their documentation, or the CIA isn't nearly as competent as you would like.

The absolute minimum the administration should have done if they were unsure, is *not* have painted themselves into a corner with their insistence on the movie story, and then continue that line of response long after the public had access to information putting that in doubt.

[RLMullen]

Spontaneously hit the safe house, murdering the Ambassador while leaving everything alone between the safe house and the embassy. CIA might want to work on it's intel.

Either the CIA is part of the grand conspiracy, or Benghazi was a confused, foggy situation that looks a lot clearer from the distance of punditry than it did as it was happening.

All I have to say about this report is that there is a certain CIA analyst who should probably consider a career change... and they should probably choose something that doesn't have "analyst" in the job title. For fuck's sake, both my wife and I pegged the Benghazi attack for exactly what it was within two days of the incident. The only information we had was news reports.

Holman... this is the part that you aren't getting. I and millions of others are NOT speaking from the distance of punditry!! That the Benghazi attack was a deliberate attack that had nothing to do with the other protests is something that was evident within days. This isn't a topic that reared its head during the debate last week!

The only conclusion that I can gather is that few news outlets actually covered the incident in the detail that it deserved. While googling for specifics yesterday, I noticed that most of the timestamped reports about the Benghazi attack in the weeks after 9/11/12 were from FoxNews and CNN. I can only guess that the other news organizations simply didn't give the story coverage, and that's why a good many people think that this is a story that broke last week.

[Combustible Lemur]

Spontaneously hit the safe house, murdering the Ambassador while leaving everything alone between the safe house and the embassy. CIA might want to work on it's intel.

Either the CIA is part of the grand conspiracy, or Benghazi was a confused, foggy situation that looks a lot clearer from the distance of punditry than it did as it was happening.

What's really weird is that the media, through iterative reporting, got it right long before the administration stopped insisting that this was all movie related. It's almost like the media did it's job this time. At which point, you need to re-evaluate your stance as an administration.

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's just spin gone wrong.

If I, a Canadian on the other side of the world, "know" that a "safe house" (not very safe as it turns out) was hit simultaneously with the Embassy, and that an Ambassador and his personal retinue were assassinated (leaving everyone else alive), that rocket propelled grenades were used (not standard issue for regular citizens, the supposed protestors) and that there seemed to be 2 distinct groups, long before the administration stopped spouting on about how a movie caused the attack (vaguely half true, due to the original protest) and deaths (not even close to being true), then I think either the CIA has released only part of their documentation, or the CIA isn't nearly as competent as you would like.

The absolute minimum the administration should have done if they were unsure, is *not* have painted themselves into a corner with their insistence on the movie story, and then continue that line of response long after the public had access to information putting that in doubt.

Just a point towards perspective, in an interview with a Libya citizen the other day it was noted that in the aftermath of the revolution many average citizens do have rpgs and assault rifles, even those not being actively violent.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[Carpet_pissr]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

[Holman]

The only conclusion that I can gather is that few news outlets actually covered the incident in the detail that it deserved. While googling for specifics yesterday, I noticed that most of the timestamped reports about the Benghazi attack in the weeks after 9/11/12 were from FoxNews and CNN. I can only guess that the other news organizations simply didn't give the story coverage, and that's why a good many people think that this is a story that broke last week.

I don't understand what you mean. The story was headline news as soon as it happened. It was all over the place.

By "the story" do you mean the controversy over the administration's interpretation of events? I've been following it since it happened, and not on Fox or CNN.

[GreenGoo]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

[GreenGoo]

Just a point towards perspective, in an interview with a Libya citizen the other day it was noted that in the aftermath of the revolution many average citizens do have rpgs and assault rifles, even those not being actively violent.

Sent from mah Incredible'

I suspected that could be the case, still, Cairo had people scaling the walls, pulling down a flag and burning it. Benghazi had people firing rpg's into the embassy for the same reason? While it certainly possible for the local yokels to go home and get their rpgs (assuming they don't carry them around with them), it seems less likely than more likely. But I don't know Benghazi well enough to judge, so I'll just concede that apparently everyone has rpg's, even those not actively violent (Wtf?).

[Holman]

Just a point towards perspective, in an interview with a Libya citizen the other day it was noted that in the aftermath of the revolution many average citizens do have rpgs and assault rifles, even those not being actively violent.

Sent from mah Incredible'

I suspected that could be the case, still, Cairo had people scaling the walls, pulling down a flag and burning it. Benghazi had people firing rpg's into the embassy for the same reason? While it certainly possible for the local yokels to go home and get their rpgs (assuming they don't carry them around with them), it seems less likely than more likely. But I don't know Benghazi well enough to judge, so I'll just concede that apparently everyone has rpg's, even those not actively violent (Wtf?).

Libya is swimming in weapons from the Civil War there. If a mob were going to form for any reason, why would they not be armed?

The debate over the interpretation of the attack seems odd because it's all so after the fact. Did initially understanding the attack as mob violence somehow cause the attack in the first place?

We're just going round and round now. I'm content to see how it shakes out on Tuesday night. Maybe it won't be pretty for Obama, or maybe Romney will bluster his way into another gaffe. We'll see.

[RLMullen]

The only conclusion that I can gather is that few news outlets actually covered the incident in the detail that it deserved. While googling for specifics yesterday, I noticed that most of the timestamped reports about the Benghazi attack in the weeks after 9/11/12 were from FoxNews and CNN. I can only guess that the other news organizations simply didn't give the story coverage, and that's why a good many people think that this is a story that broke last week.

I don't understand what you mean. The story was headline news as soon as it happened. It was all over the place.

By "the story" do you mean the controversy over the administration's interpretation of events? I've been following it since it happened, and not on Fox or CNN.

By "story" I mean ALL of it including the controversy.

If you've been following the story since it happened, was the information that you saw or heard in sync with what the administration was saying? A few days after the attack the actual details that I was seeing and reading about were in complete contrast with what the administration was claiming. THAT is the controversy... many millions of people were seeing one thing and being told something completely different.

[RLMullen]

The debate over the interpretation of the attack seems odd because it's all so after the fact.

... but it's NOT "so after the fact". It may seem after the fact if the first you heard of the controversy was in the last week or two. From my perspective the interpretation of the attack has been a large part of the story from the Sunday after the attack.

I'm content to see how it shakes out on Tuesday night.

The debate is tomorrow night, Monday. No, I don't know why they are competing with Monday Night Football and The Voice, but there you have it.

[GreenGoo]

we're just going round and round now.

No, we're actually not. If it makes you feel better we can simply remove my reference to rpg's if that is confusing you. Although I'd argue there's armed, and then there's carrying around 75lb rpg's, I don't really care about the rpg's in any real way that allows you to distract from the information that was available long before the administration stopped it's "spontaneous assembly" dialogue.

If you don't care what you're told by your government, fine. I can't make you care.

[Rip]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

Actually Sean died from smoke as well. Of course you have to consider they died from smoke as a result of hiding from people trying to shoot them.

[Rip]

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.

The Obama campaign said the FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”

“All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified,” spokesman Michael Czin said.

The Obama campaign’s apparent lack of safeguards makes it possible to violate the law, says a report released by the Government Accountability Institute, a Florida-based watchdog group.

The report found that one Obama site — Obama.com — gets almost half of its traffic from foreign computer addresses. The site directs users to an Obama donation page.

Obama’s re-election campaign took in $130,867 from donors who provided no ZIP codes and $2 million from those with incomplete ZIPs in September.

That same month, Romney’s campaign recorded $2,450 from donors without ZIP codes and $2,500 from those with incomplete ZIPs.

Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.

The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.

But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.

If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.

“I have not had any e-mails asking for proof of identity,” Walker said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/b ... hyDCRyyrEL

[Holman]

If you don't care what you're told by your government, fine. I can't make you care.

Hey, now. You really think anyone here doesn't care what we're told by our government? Be nice.

It's just that I would be more outraged if my gov't seemed to be hiding the facts, or spreading false facts, or something actually more sinister than being confused about a complicated situation. I've called it a fuckup and I've called it embarrassing, but I get the sense that some people won't be satisfied until it's called criminal and nefarious.

I see the Obama State Department getting caught flat-flooted by terrorists. I just don't see Watergate.

[Holman]

I'm content to see how it shakes out on Tuesday night.

The debate is tomorrow night, Monday. No, I don't know why they are competing with Monday Night Football and The Voice, but there you have it.

Oops. My bad, obviously.

[Victoria Raverna]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

So the ambassador was assassinated through smoke inhalation?

[Pyperkub]

Did I need to bold the part where I gave him credit for that?

Edit: and what's so unreasonable about wanting to know which women's groups are in the Mitster's coalition? Seems like basic info any reader should get considering the lede. That's not finding fault where I want to, it's basic wanting to know the facts and desiring decent journalism. If that's a fault, then that's a wart I'm not burning off. And from my posted link in case you missed it,

You're ignoring the 'disputed' part. There's really no point in disputing it. It's barely relevant and horrible nitpicking.

So, I guess it all depends on when you look at Romney's governorship to decide just how successful he was in getting women into leadership.

If you say so. But then you're talking to someone who thinks the whole pay discrepancy thing is a made up problem.

Are that's the problem here. Romney comes out with these bald-faced lies, not distortions of the truth but bald-faced lies and people say "Don't nitpick". That just scares the hell out of me.

Taibbi puts that succinctly here:

Romney has been constantly twisting and contorting himself, exchanging position for position, trading pro-choice for anti-choice, flirting with pro-gay rhetoric before shifting swiftly the other way, pioneering state health care reform before bashing virtually the same plan designed on a national scale, claiming the center on everything from guns to global warming before careening right as a presidential candidate.

Then, just within this year, the contortions took him all the way around again, in a corkscrewish motion, as he first careened as far right as he could stand to win the primary season, and then twisted some more to come all the way back to his version of the center to run as a kindler, gentler sort of centrist alternative to Obama. I was shocked to hear him say aloud in the second debate that the richest people would not have their tax burdens reduced, especially since he spent the entire primary season running as a supply-sider who would create growth by cutting taxes on capital gains, interest, dividends, and eliminating the estate tax, cuts that overwhelmingly favor the very rich.

He closes thusly:

I think the new strategy, rather than try to swim down into the deep waters of Romney's bogus plans, should be to stay on the surface and simply ask him simple questions. For instance, on his convoluted tax plan, just ask these two questions:

1) You've talked a lot about who's getting a tax break under your plan. But who's paying more? Where's the pain coming from?

2) If there is no pain, and the whole thing really is "revenue neutral," WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?

Now, cynically, we know what the "point" is. The point is to win an election by promising a 20% tax cut with one hand while promising that nobody will have to pay for it with the other.

Of course, there has always been a special place in America for unabashed hucksters...

Spoiler:

Look at our current President

[Carpet_pissr]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

So the ambassador was assassinated through smoke inhalation?

Exactly. If there is really a story here, no need to try and "sell" it with loaded words.

[Redfive]

Further clarification please: everyone keep using the word "assassinated" for how the ambassador was killed, which has a specific meaning. Reports (not sure if this is still the story or not) said that he died from smoke inhalation. Anyone fact check that?

The 3 men with him died due to gunshot wounds. J. Christopher Stevens died due to suffocation.

So the ambassador was assassinated through smoke inhalation?

Sorry, but WTF is the use of this post? Please explain how smoke or bullets make an ambassador any less dead.

This whole fiasco is a tragic joke. The fact that four of our citizens were killed is bad enough alone, but the unbelievable (and totally incompetent) efforts of so many to cover up why is a disgrace.

And it's exactly that. A poor attempt at a cover up.

And the lame attempt during the 2nd debate to say that Obama actually acknowledged it as a terrorist attack is just that, lame.

Why would he then afterward go on Letterman and the the U.N. and blame it on the stupid video?

You really don't need a tin foil hat here to see the obvious issue. And why the hell wouldn't it be politicized? Have you seen the Daily show spot linked I think from this board that shows the ridiculous administration claims? I mean, the freaking Daily Show is calling you out!

Stop insulting your and everyone else's intelligence.