Original Post: Orlando Sentinel
Two days after his lackluster first debate performance, President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a timely boost. The government's monthly jobless report for September showed the nation's unemployment rate fell below 8 percent for the first time since he took office.
If that were the only metric that mattered, the president might credibly argue that the U.S. economy was finally on the right track. Unfortunately for him, and for the American people, he can't.
Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate.
Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009.
And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall.
We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.
Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years.
Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.
With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1.
The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.
Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties.
Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't.
Romney is not our ideal candidate for president. We've been turned off by his appeals to social conservatives and immigration extremists. Like most presidential hopefuls, including Obama four years ago, Romney faces a steep learning curve on foreign policy.
But the core of Romney's campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government's balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.
Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes, and pass the health plan that became a national model.
This is Romney's time to lead, again. If he doesn't produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we'll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.
We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States.
But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race.
We endorse Mitt Romney for president.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Voting Machines Force Voters to Vote for Obama
Guilford Co. voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine
Original Post:Fox 8
by Scott Gustin, Brandon Jones and Charlie Glancy
GREENSBORO, N.C. –The presidential election is just around the corner and voting issues have already become a problem in Guilford County.
On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote. All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.
One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama. “I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.
Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers. “It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said. After the third try, Coromalis says she was able to get her vote counted for Gov. Romney but was still annoyed.
“I should have just mailed it in,” Coromalis said. Marie Haydock, who also voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location, had the same problem.
“The frustration is… every vote counts,” said Haydock. Elections officials say the machines have been fixed as of Tuesday, and no problems have been reported since.
Early voting ends November 3.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Obama condemns violence tied to anti-Muslim film
Apparently I have to post this because the President and Crowley have forgotten that it has happened. It has already gone down the Memory Hole.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well." The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well." The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Monday, October 15, 2012
SOLAR PANELS THAT BURST INTO FLAMES
Original Post:Human Events
By: Audrey Hudson
A congressional oversight panel wants to know when the Obama administration became aware of significant technological issues at a renewable energy company it helped fund, including the propensity of its solar panels to burst into flames when exposed to the sun.
Abound Solar Manufacturing was awarded a $400 million line-of-credit in taxpayer-backed loans from the Energy Department (DOE), and is the third company funded by President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan to go bankrupt, along with Solyndra and Beacon Power.
Republican Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Cliff Stearns of Florida and Cory Gardner of Colorado, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Wednesday instructing the agency to turn over certain information on the loan.
“While documents prepared at the time DOE awarded a conditional commitment to Abound do not mention any technological problems, an engineering report submitted to DOE just two months before DOE closed Abound’s $400 million loan guarantee indicates that Abound’s panels were already experiencing significant efficiency and technological difficulties,” the lawmaker said.
Abound spent $70 million of the loan it received in 2011 before going bankrupt in July. Company officials blamed the failure on China for dumping solar panels subsidized by the Communist regime on the U.S. at prices below market value.
Upton’s committee led the congressional investigation into whether the Obama White House pressured the Energy Department to lend another solar panel company, Solyndra, $535 million in guaranteed loans. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last year.
The committee is asking the Energy Department to turn over all engineering reports, tests and technical assessments it was provided by Abound, as well as all documents relating to the performance of its products by Oct. 24.
By: Audrey Hudson
A congressional oversight panel wants to know when the Obama administration became aware of significant technological issues at a renewable energy company it helped fund, including the propensity of its solar panels to burst into flames when exposed to the sun.
Abound Solar Manufacturing was awarded a $400 million line-of-credit in taxpayer-backed loans from the Energy Department (DOE), and is the third company funded by President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan to go bankrupt, along with Solyndra and Beacon Power.
Republican Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Cliff Stearns of Florida and Cory Gardner of Colorado, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Wednesday instructing the agency to turn over certain information on the loan.
“While documents prepared at the time DOE awarded a conditional commitment to Abound do not mention any technological problems, an engineering report submitted to DOE just two months before DOE closed Abound’s $400 million loan guarantee indicates that Abound’s panels were already experiencing significant efficiency and technological difficulties,” the lawmaker said.
Abound spent $70 million of the loan it received in 2011 before going bankrupt in July. Company officials blamed the failure on China for dumping solar panels subsidized by the Communist regime on the U.S. at prices below market value.
Upton’s committee led the congressional investigation into whether the Obama White House pressured the Energy Department to lend another solar panel company, Solyndra, $535 million in guaranteed loans. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last year.
The committee is asking the Energy Department to turn over all engineering reports, tests and technical assessments it was provided by Abound, as well as all documents relating to the performance of its products by Oct. 24.
Steve Wynn Says Business Is ‘Frightened’ of Obama
Original Post:Yahoo
Steve Wynn says the Obama administration's policies have directly resulted in American business leaders sitting on their bankrolls rather than investing in projects that would create jobs. Wynn, the founder and CEO of Wynn Resorts (WYNN), told Nevada television host Jon Ralston yesterday that he passed on a $2 billion project that could have created as many as 35,000 jobs because he's "afraid of the President," adding that every business guy Wynn knows is "frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks."
Breakout asked Hugh Johnson, chairman and CIO of Hugh Johnson Advisors and a job creator in his own right, if Wynn is onto something or just grinding an ax. Wynn Is "Right on the Mark"
In the attached video Johnson says Wynn is dead right. The rub for Johnson is the proposed tax hike for those making over $250,000 a year. It's not a matter of fair share but of bad business. Many of those people are owners and operators of small businesses. Tax small business people at a higher rate and they'll have less money to hire.
As the owner of a small business himself, Johnson says he would see his taxes rise as a result of the proposed hikes. "I would be affected by an increase in taxes, and that's obviously going to do something to my appetite to hire some new people; it's going to reduce it."
Johnson rejects the notion that the wealthy are opposed to higher taxes because of outsized greed and a lack of compassion. Obama's "creeping policy" against small business in favor of those in need paradoxically limits the beneficiaries' chances of getting a job. Taking money out of the hands of employers is "not how you put the U.S. economy on the road to recovery," as Johnson sees it. Rising Uncertainty on the Election
Even with the sense that the deck is increasingly stacked against him and his fellow business owners, Johnson doesn't think policy is the main culprit behind the economy recovering without as many jobs as would be expected. A far bigger concern is a lack of certainty on what the tax rates will ultimately be. It's impossible to know whether or not hiring makes economic sense when you don't know what your rates are going to be. Romney's comeback in the polls doesn't help — at least for now.
"I want to see who's going to win this election, and I really want to see what the tax and spending policies are going to be for the next four years," says Johnson. "I don't know that right now, so I'm putting things on hold now and waiting for the outcome of this election."
Even if Romney wins the White House come February, there's no guarantee his policies will actually be put in place. But that's a problem for another day. For now guys like Steve Wynn and Hugh Johnson would be happy just to feel like they aren't the scapegoats for a recovery that continues to feel like a recession.
Steve Wynn says the Obama administration's policies have directly resulted in American business leaders sitting on their bankrolls rather than investing in projects that would create jobs. Wynn, the founder and CEO of Wynn Resorts (WYNN), told Nevada television host Jon Ralston yesterday that he passed on a $2 billion project that could have created as many as 35,000 jobs because he's "afraid of the President," adding that every business guy Wynn knows is "frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks."
Breakout asked Hugh Johnson, chairman and CIO of Hugh Johnson Advisors and a job creator in his own right, if Wynn is onto something or just grinding an ax. Wynn Is "Right on the Mark"
In the attached video Johnson says Wynn is dead right. The rub for Johnson is the proposed tax hike for those making over $250,000 a year. It's not a matter of fair share but of bad business. Many of those people are owners and operators of small businesses. Tax small business people at a higher rate and they'll have less money to hire.
As the owner of a small business himself, Johnson says he would see his taxes rise as a result of the proposed hikes. "I would be affected by an increase in taxes, and that's obviously going to do something to my appetite to hire some new people; it's going to reduce it."
Johnson rejects the notion that the wealthy are opposed to higher taxes because of outsized greed and a lack of compassion. Obama's "creeping policy" against small business in favor of those in need paradoxically limits the beneficiaries' chances of getting a job. Taking money out of the hands of employers is "not how you put the U.S. economy on the road to recovery," as Johnson sees it. Rising Uncertainty on the Election
Even with the sense that the deck is increasingly stacked against him and his fellow business owners, Johnson doesn't think policy is the main culprit behind the economy recovering without as many jobs as would be expected. A far bigger concern is a lack of certainty on what the tax rates will ultimately be. It's impossible to know whether or not hiring makes economic sense when you don't know what your rates are going to be. Romney's comeback in the polls doesn't help — at least for now.
"I want to see who's going to win this election, and I really want to see what the tax and spending policies are going to be for the next four years," says Johnson. "I don't know that right now, so I'm putting things on hold now and waiting for the outcome of this election."
Even if Romney wins the White House come February, there's no guarantee his policies will actually be put in place. But that's a problem for another day. For now guys like Steve Wynn and Hugh Johnson would be happy just to feel like they aren't the scapegoats for a recovery that continues to feel like a recession.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist vote twice
Original Post:Newstalk 1130
Videographer James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught an official for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign helping who she thought was an Obama supporter set herself up to vote more than once in November. Stephanie Caballero is the regional field director for Obama’s Organizing For America in Houston, Texas. Federal Election Commission documents show, according to Project Veritas, that Caballero is a “salaried employee of the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” Caballero is caught on camera helping the young woman try to vote in Florida and Texas in the upcoming election.
“So I spent some time in Florida, and I got my voter registration card for Florida. So and I know that we have you know it’s a battleground state there,” the Project Veritas reporter said to Caballero.
“Keep it, keep it… so you’re going to vote by ballot?” Caballero responded. “I’m going to vote by ballot and then I have mine here too,” the videographer answered, adding that: “it just really concerns me that if we don’t do everything we can we’re not going to win.”
Caballero then advises: “okay, so you have to make sure because after 60 days you can send in your application to vote by mail ballot.”
“So I can print that out for you. On Wednesday I’ll print it out. You just have to mail it or fax,” she added.
“Okay, or fax it back in so that I can do,” the videographer responded. “So they’ll send you a mail ballot,” Caballero then said. “A mail ballot, and so, and there’s no way that they would be able to cross reference that?” the videographer then asked.
“If you voted twice?” Caballero asked, seeking to clarify, adding, “I don’t know with you. I might just do Florida because in Texas it really doesn’t [count].” Later in the conversation, referencing the voter fraud, the videographer said to Caballero: “And let me know about that. I mean I don’t want to do anything wrong. But if no one’s going to know, like…”
“I’ll definitely look into [it]. I don’t want you to get in trouble at all,” Caballero promised.
The videographer responded: “Yeah, I don’t want to get in trouble. But like I said, if no one’s going to know I don’t have a problem with it, yeah. So anyway, but…” Caballero then said: “Oh, my God. This is so funny. It’s cool though.” O’Keefe then said “a few weeks later,” his videographer went back to the office to follow up. Caballero gave her a Florida absentee ballot application to “help her vote twice.”
After Caballero sets the videographer up to vote in Florida, she asked the Project Veritas investigator: “Are you going to do what I think you’re going do?” The videographer responded: “Well, I mean, if no one’s gonna know…” Caballero audibly laughed, then said: “You’re so hilarious!”
Videographer James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught an official for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign helping who she thought was an Obama supporter set herself up to vote more than once in November. Stephanie Caballero is the regional field director for Obama’s Organizing For America in Houston, Texas. Federal Election Commission documents show, according to Project Veritas, that Caballero is a “salaried employee of the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” Caballero is caught on camera helping the young woman try to vote in Florida and Texas in the upcoming election.
“So I spent some time in Florida, and I got my voter registration card for Florida. So and I know that we have you know it’s a battleground state there,” the Project Veritas reporter said to Caballero.
“Keep it, keep it… so you’re going to vote by ballot?” Caballero responded. “I’m going to vote by ballot and then I have mine here too,” the videographer answered, adding that: “it just really concerns me that if we don’t do everything we can we’re not going to win.”
Caballero then advises: “okay, so you have to make sure because after 60 days you can send in your application to vote by mail ballot.”
“So I can print that out for you. On Wednesday I’ll print it out. You just have to mail it or fax,” she added.
“Okay, or fax it back in so that I can do,” the videographer responded. “So they’ll send you a mail ballot,” Caballero then said. “A mail ballot, and so, and there’s no way that they would be able to cross reference that?” the videographer then asked.
“If you voted twice?” Caballero asked, seeking to clarify, adding, “I don’t know with you. I might just do Florida because in Texas it really doesn’t [count].” Later in the conversation, referencing the voter fraud, the videographer said to Caballero: “And let me know about that. I mean I don’t want to do anything wrong. But if no one’s going to know, like…”
“I’ll definitely look into [it]. I don’t want you to get in trouble at all,” Caballero promised.
The videographer responded: “Yeah, I don’t want to get in trouble. But like I said, if no one’s going to know I don’t have a problem with it, yeah. So anyway, but…” Caballero then said: “Oh, my God. This is so funny. It’s cool though.” O’Keefe then said “a few weeks later,” his videographer went back to the office to follow up. Caballero gave her a Florida absentee ballot application to “help her vote twice.”
After Caballero sets the videographer up to vote in Florida, she asked the Project Veritas investigator: “Are you going to do what I think you’re going do?” The videographer responded: “Well, I mean, if no one’s gonna know…” Caballero audibly laughed, then said: “You’re so hilarious!”
Stacey Dash 'shocked' by 'fury' over her Romney support
Original Post: USA Today
Stacey Dash told Piers Morgan on his CNN show Tuesday night that her support for Mitt Romney has provoked some serious negative feedback.
The Clueless actress tweeted her political opinion on Sunday, writing: "Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future."
She was immediately slammed with Tweets attacking her. One example: "Wait Stacey Dash is voting for Romney? You get a lil money and you forget that you're black and a woman. Two things Romney hates."
And one of the latest came from Samuel L. Jackson, who said, "Wait, did Stacey Dash Really endorse Romney today?! REALLY????! Is she CRA...........??!"
Dash, 46, told Morgan last night, "I really don't understand the fury. I don't get it. ... I was shocked, really shocked. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you."
Dash explained to Morgan that she was a Democrat and voted for Barack Obama in the last election, but now, "I want the next four years to be different." And she says, "It's my right as an American citizen. ... I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
She says that she saw Romney and his wife on Meet the Press, and "they seemed authentic and genuine in what they said about the country. And the need for us to be united and move forward."
Dash said Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, called her Tuesday and told her she was brave. He tweeted his thanks to her, saying, "Had a great conversation with @REALStaceyDash this afternoon. Thank you for your support!"
And there has been other positive support from fans, too. TV game show host Chuck Woolery tweeted: "Stacey Dash, a beautiful young black woman, demeaned by the left, because she is for Romney. Hollywood, It's a tough place to speak U'r mind."
Stacey Dash told Piers Morgan on his CNN show Tuesday night that her support for Mitt Romney has provoked some serious negative feedback.
The Clueless actress tweeted her political opinion on Sunday, writing: "Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future."
She was immediately slammed with Tweets attacking her. One example: "Wait Stacey Dash is voting for Romney? You get a lil money and you forget that you're black and a woman. Two things Romney hates."
And one of the latest came from Samuel L. Jackson, who said, "Wait, did Stacey Dash Really endorse Romney today?! REALLY????! Is she CRA...........??!"
Dash, 46, told Morgan last night, "I really don't understand the fury. I don't get it. ... I was shocked, really shocked. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you."
Dash explained to Morgan that she was a Democrat and voted for Barack Obama in the last election, but now, "I want the next four years to be different." And she says, "It's my right as an American citizen. ... I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
She says that she saw Romney and his wife on Meet the Press, and "they seemed authentic and genuine in what they said about the country. And the need for us to be united and move forward."
Dash said Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, called her Tuesday and told her she was brave. He tweeted his thanks to her, saying, "Had a great conversation with @REALStaceyDash this afternoon. Thank you for your support!"
And there has been other positive support from fans, too. TV game show host Chuck Woolery tweeted: "Stacey Dash, a beautiful young black woman, demeaned by the left, because she is for Romney. Hollywood, It's a tough place to speak U'r mind."
Saturday, October 13, 2012
U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi
Original Post: Yahoo
By Susan Cornwell and Mark Hosenball
A U.S. security officer twice asked his State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response. The officer, Eric Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until about two months before the September attack, said a State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low," according to a memo summarizing his comments to a congressional committee that was obtained by Reuters.
Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi. A brief summary of Nordstrom's October 1 interview with the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was contained in a memo prepared by the committee's minority Democratic staff.
Nordstrom's actions and those of his superiors are likely to figure prominently in a House committee hearing on Wednesday that will be Congress' first public examination of what went wrong at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.
The State Department has defended security procedures in Libya and convened its own independent review board. A State Department official declined to comment on what Nordstrom told lawmakers in private, noting that Nordstrom would testify at the public hearing on Wednesday and "that's something that will come out in the hearing." State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the department's "posture is to be as cooperative as we possibly can" at the Wednesday hearing. In addition to Nordstrom, it will feature testimony by Lamb, Patrick Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed a security support team at the Tripoli embassy.
Debate over whether the Americans were caught unprepared for the assault by militants on the diplomatic mission in Libya's relatively lawless eastern section has put the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, on the defensive in the run-up to the November presidential election.
A leading Republican on the committee probing the attack, Representative Jason Chaffetz, told Reuters Tuesday he thought security decisions U.S. officials made for the Benghazi mission had turned out to be "deadly" ones.
The top U.S. intelligence authority, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, says the four Americans were killed in an organized terrorist assault, but the attackers have not been identified.
Separately, a U.S. official confirmed to Reuters that in addition to the four Americans who were killed in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, three more Americans were injured. Only one of those remains in hospital, the official said.
Nordstrom, a State Department regional security officer, told lawmakers that Kennedy issued a "decision memo" in December 2011 requiring that the Benghazi post be manned with five diplomatic security agents, but that it usually had only three or four. "He (Nordstrom) stated that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses," the memo said.
At some point, however, it appears Nordstrom learned the views of Lamb because he told the committee she "wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low," the memo said.
"He said that Deputy Assistant Secretary (for international programs) Lamb believed the Benghazi post did not need any Diplomatic Security Special Agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency, but that she thought the best course of action was to assign three agents," the memo said. It is unclear who made the final decision about how many agents were stationed in Benghazi.
"Sadly, that was a deadly decision," Representative Chaffetz said of leaving the mission with just a few security agents.
"Look at the result -- the first (U.S.) ambassador killed since the 1970s," Chaffetz said in an interview.
The Oversight and Government Reform committee has been investigating the handling of security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before the attack. The committee's Republican Chairman Darrell Issa and Chaffetz, a subcommittee chairman, have led the probe.
Chaffetz said he suspects the devotion of so much effort and money to Iraq and Afghanistan has drained resources away from security for U.S. diplomatic efforts in other parts of the world. U.S. troops have withdrawn from Iraq but thousands of security contractors remain there, he said.
"We have 15,000 (security contractors) in Iraq, and we have a hard time having more than two dozen in Libya," Chaffetz said. "It doesn't seem to balance itself out right."
Democrats counter that Republicans have pushed for cuts in the funding of the very embassy security that they now are charging is insufficient. The Democratic staff memo that outlined Nordstrom's pleas for more security also said that House Republicans voted to reduce embassy security funding by about half a billion dollars below the amount requested by the Obama administration since 2010. The Democratic-led Senate had been able to restore "a small portion" of these funds, the memo said.
Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped alone inside the burning building in Benghazi in an attack that began on the evening of September 11.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a conference in Florida on Tuesday that there was no advanced warning about the Libya attack. He scoffed at media portrayals of him as "hapless and hopeless" for acknowledging on September 28 a shift in the intelligence assessment of the Benghazi assault, calling it a deliberate terrorist attack instead of an event stemming from spontaneous protest, as initially thought.
Clapper suggested it was unrealistic for anyone to expect the U.S. intelligence community to have a "a God's eye, God's ear certitude" right after an attack like the one in Libya.
By Susan Cornwell and Mark Hosenball
A U.S. security officer twice asked his State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response. The officer, Eric Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until about two months before the September attack, said a State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low," according to a memo summarizing his comments to a congressional committee that was obtained by Reuters.
Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi. A brief summary of Nordstrom's October 1 interview with the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was contained in a memo prepared by the committee's minority Democratic staff.
Nordstrom's actions and those of his superiors are likely to figure prominently in a House committee hearing on Wednesday that will be Congress' first public examination of what went wrong at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.
The State Department has defended security procedures in Libya and convened its own independent review board. A State Department official declined to comment on what Nordstrom told lawmakers in private, noting that Nordstrom would testify at the public hearing on Wednesday and "that's something that will come out in the hearing." State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the department's "posture is to be as cooperative as we possibly can" at the Wednesday hearing. In addition to Nordstrom, it will feature testimony by Lamb, Patrick Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed a security support team at the Tripoli embassy.
Debate over whether the Americans were caught unprepared for the assault by militants on the diplomatic mission in Libya's relatively lawless eastern section has put the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, on the defensive in the run-up to the November presidential election.
A leading Republican on the committee probing the attack, Representative Jason Chaffetz, told Reuters Tuesday he thought security decisions U.S. officials made for the Benghazi mission had turned out to be "deadly" ones.
The top U.S. intelligence authority, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, says the four Americans were killed in an organized terrorist assault, but the attackers have not been identified.
Separately, a U.S. official confirmed to Reuters that in addition to the four Americans who were killed in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, three more Americans were injured. Only one of those remains in hospital, the official said.
Nordstrom, a State Department regional security officer, told lawmakers that Kennedy issued a "decision memo" in December 2011 requiring that the Benghazi post be manned with five diplomatic security agents, but that it usually had only three or four. "He (Nordstrom) stated that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses," the memo said.
At some point, however, it appears Nordstrom learned the views of Lamb because he told the committee she "wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low," the memo said.
"He said that Deputy Assistant Secretary (for international programs) Lamb believed the Benghazi post did not need any Diplomatic Security Special Agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency, but that she thought the best course of action was to assign three agents," the memo said. It is unclear who made the final decision about how many agents were stationed in Benghazi.
"Sadly, that was a deadly decision," Representative Chaffetz said of leaving the mission with just a few security agents.
"Look at the result -- the first (U.S.) ambassador killed since the 1970s," Chaffetz said in an interview.
The Oversight and Government Reform committee has been investigating the handling of security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before the attack. The committee's Republican Chairman Darrell Issa and Chaffetz, a subcommittee chairman, have led the probe.
Chaffetz said he suspects the devotion of so much effort and money to Iraq and Afghanistan has drained resources away from security for U.S. diplomatic efforts in other parts of the world. U.S. troops have withdrawn from Iraq but thousands of security contractors remain there, he said.
"We have 15,000 (security contractors) in Iraq, and we have a hard time having more than two dozen in Libya," Chaffetz said. "It doesn't seem to balance itself out right."
Democrats counter that Republicans have pushed for cuts in the funding of the very embassy security that they now are charging is insufficient. The Democratic staff memo that outlined Nordstrom's pleas for more security also said that House Republicans voted to reduce embassy security funding by about half a billion dollars below the amount requested by the Obama administration since 2010. The Democratic-led Senate had been able to restore "a small portion" of these funds, the memo said.
Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped alone inside the burning building in Benghazi in an attack that began on the evening of September 11.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a conference in Florida on Tuesday that there was no advanced warning about the Libya attack. He scoffed at media portrayals of him as "hapless and hopeless" for acknowledging on September 28 a shift in the intelligence assessment of the Benghazi assault, calling it a deliberate terrorist attack instead of an event stemming from spontaneous protest, as initially thought.
Clapper suggested it was unrealistic for anyone to expect the U.S. intelligence community to have a "a God's eye, God's ear certitude" right after an attack like the one in Libya.
Former NHS director dies after operation is cancelled four times at her own hospital
Original Post: Daily Mail
A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation - at her own hospital.
Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex. But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.
Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust - the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors.
He said: 'I don't really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off.'
Mr Hutchon, of Great Baddow, Essex, said his wife, 72, had initially undergone major stomach surgery last June but the follow up procedures were repeatedly abandoned. The former mayor remained at the hospital for months but her family feared she was becoming institutionalised and decided to bring her home until an operation was a certainty.
Margaret Hutchon waited nine months for an operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford where she was a non-executive director Mr Hutchon, 71, said: 'The case has been referred to the coroner because of the long time it has taken. In some ways, I would like the coroner to order a post mortem.' The pensioner said his wife had been left very weak before her operation because she had been unable to take in nutrients.
'From July to October there was talk of another operation and then between November and December there were three or four postponements and she was becoming so institutionalised we decided to get her home until an operation was certain. 'It was a blessing because although neither of is could have guessed it - it gave us a last month together.
'Nevertheless, she was unable to take proper nourishment and went into the operation on the better side of a low state - she was very weak.'
Mrs Hutchon was well known and respected after serving in local government for the past 30 years and she became mayor of Chelmsford in 2006.
Mike Mackrory, a fellow Liberal Democrat councillor, said: We were all stunned to hear she had died after the operation. There were constant delays she had to endure before surgery.
'We were given the very sad news and as word spread it threw a pall over the civic dinner. Margaret was much loved and respected in this town.' A spokesman for Broomfield Hospital said it could not comment on individual cases.
A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation - at her own hospital.
Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex. But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.
Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust - the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors.
He said: 'I don't really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off.'
Mr Hutchon, of Great Baddow, Essex, said his wife, 72, had initially undergone major stomach surgery last June but the follow up procedures were repeatedly abandoned. The former mayor remained at the hospital for months but her family feared she was becoming institutionalised and decided to bring her home until an operation was a certainty.
Margaret Hutchon waited nine months for an operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford where she was a non-executive director Mr Hutchon, 71, said: 'The case has been referred to the coroner because of the long time it has taken. In some ways, I would like the coroner to order a post mortem.' The pensioner said his wife had been left very weak before her operation because she had been unable to take in nutrients.
'From July to October there was talk of another operation and then between November and December there were three or four postponements and she was becoming so institutionalised we decided to get her home until an operation was certain. 'It was a blessing because although neither of is could have guessed it - it gave us a last month together.
'Nevertheless, she was unable to take proper nourishment and went into the operation on the better side of a low state - she was very weak.'
Mrs Hutchon was well known and respected after serving in local government for the past 30 years and she became mayor of Chelmsford in 2006.
Mike Mackrory, a fellow Liberal Democrat councillor, said: We were all stunned to hear she had died after the operation. There were constant delays she had to endure before surgery.
'We were given the very sad news and as word spread it threw a pall over the civic dinner. Margaret was much loved and respected in this town.' A spokesman for Broomfield Hospital said it could not comment on individual cases.
U.S. SOLDIERS URGED NOT TO SHOOT TALIBAN AT NIGHT SO LOCALS CAN SLEEP
Original Post: Breitbart
by AWR HAWKINS
Reports indicate U.S. soldiers and British Royal Marines have been urged to show "courageous constraint" by not shooting Taliban members spotted planting IEDs. The reason? Shooting them might disturb the locals.
This news comes out on the heels of an investigation into the death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories of how their loved ones were not allowed to use mortars or night illumination when they came across Taliban members in an area full of IEDs.
The reason given was that "the sound of shooting 'might wake up and upset the locals.'" This is not "courageous restraint" -- this is appeasement.
by AWR HAWKINS
Reports indicate U.S. soldiers and British Royal Marines have been urged to show "courageous constraint" by not shooting Taliban members spotted planting IEDs. The reason? Shooting them might disturb the locals.
This news comes out on the heels of an investigation into the death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories of how their loved ones were not allowed to use mortars or night illumination when they came across Taliban members in an area full of IEDs.
The reason given was that "the sound of shooting 'might wake up and upset the locals.'" This is not "courageous restraint" -- this is appeasement.
Friday, October 12, 2012
And people wonder why we call the President a socialist
Obama dedicates Chavez national monument
Original Post: Bakersfield Californian
BY JAMES BURGER, COURTENAY EDELHART AND STEVEN MAYER, Californian staff writers
KEENE — President Barack Obama on Monday declared La Paz, the nickname of the United Farm Workers union headquarters and onetime home of Cesar Chavez, a national monument and said it will help tell the story of “who we are as Americans.”
He said the story is about hardworking people determined to make America “a little more just, a little more free.”
Before his speech, Obama laid a single red rose on the grave of Chavez.
The sun-splashed event at the longtime UFW compound was crowded with about 6,600 visitors, but many others were unexpectedly shut out.
Organizers said too many people had responded to an email invitation, so over the weekend they began disinviting hundreds, if not thousands, of those who thought they could attend. Facebook pages quickly filled up with the comments of unhappy people whose dream to see the president would be thwarted.
Obama’s brief speech, in large part, was a tribute to Chavez and his family, and by extension, to the indomitable spirit of the American people.The nation’s monuments, Obama said, tell a story of people, of determined, fearless, hopeful people who have always been willing to devote their lives to making this country a little more just and a little more free.
“And one of those people lies here, beneath the rose garden at the foot of a hill he used to climb to watch the sunrise,” he said.
Chavez, Obama said, embodied the hope and determination that has been evident in generations of immigrants who looked to America, not just as a place to set down roots, but as a land of unlimited possibilities, for themselves and their posterity.
The president stayed away from overt campaign language, never mentioning the upcoming election or his Republican opponent. His only nod to the election was an acknowledgement that the work Chavez began is not yet finished, that more work needs to be done.
Before Obama spoke, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa addressed the audience.
Villaraigosa said Chavez taught America “the promise of freedom is not always for the powerful but also the powerless. Not just for those who owned the fields but also the people who worked the fields.”
Solis said Chavez’s legacy is that “work is not just a source of income, it’s a source of dignity” and that Chavez “brought the plight of farmworkers to anyone who would listen and some who would not.”
Salazar said the Interior Department is working to make sure national monuments reflect all people of all backgrounds.
The crowd erupted into cheers as Cesar Chavez Foundation President Paul Chavez, Cesar's son, took the stage and talked about his father’s connection to Nuestra Señora Reina de La Paz.
"He found the place where he could plan and strategize," he said. "But it was more than that for my father. La Paz became a spiritual harbor for him."
Next to come to the stage was UFW President Arturo Rodriguez.
"Si se puede," he shouted, the UFW motto. He was echoed by the crowd.
Farmworkers and supporters from 25 states came to the event, Rodriguez said.
The monument is, he said, a tribute to Chavez but also to the thousands of people who still carry on the legacy he left behind.
"Each farmworker can change the world," Rodriguez said.
Then he introduced Obama.
"Si se puede," the president shouted. The crowd shouted back, "Si se puede."
The president spoke for about 10 minutes then headed back to Meadows Field for departure out of Bakersfield.
Before making his remarks, Obama stopped to visit Cesar Chavez’s grave.
The gravesite sits amid a lush garden surrounded by low, white adobe walls and arbors of dark wood beams covered in climbing vines. Planters of river rock and terra cotta pots contain a wide variety of flowers and plants. Walkways and steps lead up to the grave, which is flanked by two planters full of red roses.
The Chavez grave is marked by an unpainted wooden cross and low stone marker that sits alone in the midst of a plot of well-tended grass.
Obama was joined by Chavez’s widow, Helen Chavez; Huerta; Paul Chavez; and Rodriguez. The president talked quietly with Helen Chavez at the grave then listened as Paul Chavez, standing in a white shirt, explained the words engraved behind the grave:
“It is my deepest belief that only by giving of our lives do we find life.”
Obama left the gravesite with his arms around Huerta and Helen Chavez.
The president’s visit came a little less than a month before election day, timing not lost on many political pundits and everyday voters who pointed out Obama’s need to turn out the Latino electorate.
Most polls, including CNN’s national survey of likely Latino voters, show Obama is expected to receive close to 70 percent of the Latino vote Nov. 6. But Latino Americans, as a whole, are less likely to vote than whites and blacks, and Latinos are reporting less enthusiasm for the 2012 race than they reported four years ago.
MEMORIES Thousands began arriving at La Paz as early as 4:30 a.m. to watch Obama dedicate the monument.
Victor Garza brought his 10-year-old son, Arik. The longtime civil rights activist from Fresno has come to pray and meditate at the center but said this visit was special.
“I wanted to bring my son to meet President Obama because it’s something that he can remember and cherish for the rest of his life,” he said.
Cesar Chavez Elementary School in northeast Bakersfield brought 23 second- through fifth-graders to the event to sing the program’s closing song.
They wore khaki pants or skirts and navy blue school uniform shirts. The girls wore patriotic red, white and blue ribbons in their hair.
They were happy to be there even though the trip in was grueling.
“It was very long, exhausting and slow,” said fifth-grader Kylie Lopez, 9. “But it’s very exciting. I have only seen (Obama) on television and in pictures.”
Roberta Cumberland, 55, of Bakersfield, woke up at 6 a.m. to head out from Bakersfield with her daughter Cara Cumberland, 28.
"I've actually never been to anything political or anything like this before, so this is my first experience like this," Cara said.
Her mother said she wanted to come because she admires both Chavez and the president and considered the event a historic milestone.
"This is the first time a president I've actually supported has come to Kern County," Roberta said.
Cal State Bakersfield seniors Gracy Mendez, 25, and Maria Moreno, 21, said the speech was well worth rising at 4:45 a.m. to get to La Paz from southwest Bakersfield.
"I thought it was inspiring," Mendez said.
Moreno called the address "touching."
"I love the way he used the ‘Si se puede’ slogan from Cesar Chavez."
The Rev. John Schmoll of St. Augustine Church in Lamont wore a UFW cap. His pastor's collar peeked out from beneath a black T-shirt with "Who would Jesus deport?" in bold white letters.
He said the church office closed Monday so its small staff could come, and the speech was "well worth waiting for. You could live your whole life and never see a president, and it was a good speech to top it all off."
US officials: We didn't link Libya attack to video
Original Post: Yahoo
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
IPAB Is Even Worse than Romney Says
Original Post: Cato
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
In Wednesday night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney claimed that ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board is “an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.”
President Obama officially denies it, yet he confirmed Romney’s claim when he said, “what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.”
In this excerpt from his column in today’s The Washington Post, George F. Will quotes my coauthor Diane Cohen and me to show that IPAB is even worse than Romney claimed:
The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.
These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”
By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.
Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
In Wednesday night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney claimed that ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board is “an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.”
President Obama officially denies it, yet he confirmed Romney’s claim when he said, “what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.”
In this excerpt from his column in today’s The Washington Post, George F. Will quotes my coauthor Diane Cohen and me to show that IPAB is even worse than Romney claimed:
The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.
These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”
By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.
Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Editorial: Dallas Morning News endorses Mitt Romney for president
Original Post: Dallas News
Barack Obama will forever be a historic, as well as historical, figure in American life. The 44th U.S. president, yes, but more noteworthy, he will forever be the first African-American to lead a nation riven through centuries by racial and ethnic division.
His election in November 2008 inspired. Even those who may not have supported him could not deny the significance.
With it came an optimism that the ideals he stressed as a candidate, like a post-partisan Washington where Democrats and Republicans worked together, were within reach. He took office amid great turmoil, a crashing economy and two wars atop his priorities.
Candidate Obama, an orator of great skill and cadence, might have overcome everything and put the U.S. on a brighter path. President Obama, unfortunately, fell short of the challenge. The wars have largely faded from headlines, but the economic struggles remain, along with an attendant worry about future federal spending, deficits and debt.
Obama’s Democratic supporters would argue that no one could have succeeded in what he inherited, that the nation’s problems were far more severe than anyone could handle in four years.
We respectfully disagree. On the central issue that will define his presidency — a stalled U.S. economy weighed down by crushing annual deficits and accumulated debt — Obama showed himself to be less leader than follower. While he expended his political capital on new government programs, unemployment stayed at debilitating heights. For that reason, this newspaper recommends Republican challenger Mitt Romney for president.
We see evidence of Obama’s shortcomings in his re-election campaign, a relentlessly negative push to disqualify his opponent instead of standing on his accomplishments. His campaign has worn voters’ patience thin by constantly blaming predecessor George W. Bush for “the mess he left behind.”
Cleaning up that mess, however large, was what Americans trusted to Obama. Romney had to survive a fractious primary by steering too far right on some issues. At his core, however, we see him as a “Chamber of Commerce Republican,” more attuned to business interests than the tea party/social conservatism that defines today’s GOP.
Importantly, Romney speaks the language of industry. His tenure leading Bain Capital, for instance, has come under sharp criticism for years, but it also reveals a man who understands capital formation and how that, extrapolated through an economy, can lift the U.S. from its stalled state. Even some of Obama’s Democratic allies — notably rising star Cory Booker, former adviser Steven Rattner and former Rep. Harold Ford — were quick to criticize the campaign’s Bain-centric attacks on profit.
Unlike many in his party, Romney understands that government has a place in the economy and in American life, just not as much of a place as Obama would afford it. Obama has cited, with some justification, recalcitrance from congressional Republicans for thwarting him. But in his first two years, when Democrats had a wide margin in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama’s wounds were self-inflicted. He put his chips on a necessary but ill-conceived stimulus program and a massive health care overhaul. Left to languish were a broad-based energy bill, comprehensive immigration reform, entitlement reform and, most ominously, effective job-creation programs.
Obama’s people warned of unemployment rates as high as 8 percent without the stimulus spending, only to see rates exceed 8 percent, anyway, for 43 consecutive months — and counting. Real household income has fallen in consecutive years. Food stamp enrollment has hit record highs; the percentage of adults in the workforce approaches record lows.
Annual deficits for every year of the Obama presidency will top $1 trillion, pushing the federal debt past an astounding $16 trillion.
Obama’s Affordable Care Act was his signature domestic achievement. Its many laudable features included the individual mandate, but one was not its financing, which led this newspaper to oppose it. Obama left the details to Congress, and what emerged had no realistic funding stream and did too little to contain future costs.
Of most concern, Obama was not unaware of the fiscal problem. He put together a bipartisan panel to help forge a solution but then abandoned it. Left to languish, the Simpson-Bowles group could not achieve the votes to force congressional action. The proposal, which included a roughly 3-to-1 package of spending cuts to revenue increases, was the kind of compromise candidate Obama had advocated. As president, he chose not to act.
Romney has shown an ability to lead, from turning around the deficit-ridden 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics to his term as Massachusetts governor. His plans for tax and entitlement reform are encouraging, shifting the focus from government first to freeing the private sector to innovate. Voters should demand more specifics, but at the heart of his plans — especially on reforming a teetering Medicare system — is an instinct to rely on competition over regulation to drive growth.
Yet Romney does give us pause. His famed flip-flops on issues from immigration to health care, always pushing further right, are worrisome. His difficulty in speaking precisely and inoffensively on such issues as London’s Olympic preparedness, Israeli Palestinian issues and U.S. embassy assaults paint him, at best, as a foreign policy neophyte.
And his secretly recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser drew an unreasonably sharp line between those who pay income taxes and “the 47 percent” of Americans who only take and would never support him, anyway. These ill-advised statements offended many and played directly into the Obama campaign’s picture of an excessively wealthy candidate out of touch with the common man.
Not his finest moment, nor was it the lone defining one for Romney. What we’ve seen of him over many years — from business success to running a state to impeccable personal and family attributes — convinces this newspaper that the time is right for someone with his broad skill set.
Obama himself once said that if he didn’t repair the economy “in three years, this would be a one-term proposition.” The facts show it’s time for a principled, pragmatic leader who can get Washington working again.
Barack Obama will forever be a historic, as well as historical, figure in American life. The 44th U.S. president, yes, but more noteworthy, he will forever be the first African-American to lead a nation riven through centuries by racial and ethnic division.
His election in November 2008 inspired. Even those who may not have supported him could not deny the significance.
With it came an optimism that the ideals he stressed as a candidate, like a post-partisan Washington where Democrats and Republicans worked together, were within reach. He took office amid great turmoil, a crashing economy and two wars atop his priorities.
Candidate Obama, an orator of great skill and cadence, might have overcome everything and put the U.S. on a brighter path. President Obama, unfortunately, fell short of the challenge. The wars have largely faded from headlines, but the economic struggles remain, along with an attendant worry about future federal spending, deficits and debt.
Obama’s Democratic supporters would argue that no one could have succeeded in what he inherited, that the nation’s problems were far more severe than anyone could handle in four years.
We respectfully disagree. On the central issue that will define his presidency — a stalled U.S. economy weighed down by crushing annual deficits and accumulated debt — Obama showed himself to be less leader than follower. While he expended his political capital on new government programs, unemployment stayed at debilitating heights. For that reason, this newspaper recommends Republican challenger Mitt Romney for president.
We see evidence of Obama’s shortcomings in his re-election campaign, a relentlessly negative push to disqualify his opponent instead of standing on his accomplishments. His campaign has worn voters’ patience thin by constantly blaming predecessor George W. Bush for “the mess he left behind.”
Cleaning up that mess, however large, was what Americans trusted to Obama. Romney had to survive a fractious primary by steering too far right on some issues. At his core, however, we see him as a “Chamber of Commerce Republican,” more attuned to business interests than the tea party/social conservatism that defines today’s GOP.
Importantly, Romney speaks the language of industry. His tenure leading Bain Capital, for instance, has come under sharp criticism for years, but it also reveals a man who understands capital formation and how that, extrapolated through an economy, can lift the U.S. from its stalled state. Even some of Obama’s Democratic allies — notably rising star Cory Booker, former adviser Steven Rattner and former Rep. Harold Ford — were quick to criticize the campaign’s Bain-centric attacks on profit.
Unlike many in his party, Romney understands that government has a place in the economy and in American life, just not as much of a place as Obama would afford it. Obama has cited, with some justification, recalcitrance from congressional Republicans for thwarting him. But in his first two years, when Democrats had a wide margin in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama’s wounds were self-inflicted. He put his chips on a necessary but ill-conceived stimulus program and a massive health care overhaul. Left to languish were a broad-based energy bill, comprehensive immigration reform, entitlement reform and, most ominously, effective job-creation programs.
Obama’s people warned of unemployment rates as high as 8 percent without the stimulus spending, only to see rates exceed 8 percent, anyway, for 43 consecutive months — and counting. Real household income has fallen in consecutive years. Food stamp enrollment has hit record highs; the percentage of adults in the workforce approaches record lows.
Annual deficits for every year of the Obama presidency will top $1 trillion, pushing the federal debt past an astounding $16 trillion.
Obama’s Affordable Care Act was his signature domestic achievement. Its many laudable features included the individual mandate, but one was not its financing, which led this newspaper to oppose it. Obama left the details to Congress, and what emerged had no realistic funding stream and did too little to contain future costs.
Of most concern, Obama was not unaware of the fiscal problem. He put together a bipartisan panel to help forge a solution but then abandoned it. Left to languish, the Simpson-Bowles group could not achieve the votes to force congressional action. The proposal, which included a roughly 3-to-1 package of spending cuts to revenue increases, was the kind of compromise candidate Obama had advocated. As president, he chose not to act.
Romney has shown an ability to lead, from turning around the deficit-ridden 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics to his term as Massachusetts governor. His plans for tax and entitlement reform are encouraging, shifting the focus from government first to freeing the private sector to innovate. Voters should demand more specifics, but at the heart of his plans — especially on reforming a teetering Medicare system — is an instinct to rely on competition over regulation to drive growth.
Yet Romney does give us pause. His famed flip-flops on issues from immigration to health care, always pushing further right, are worrisome. His difficulty in speaking precisely and inoffensively on such issues as London’s Olympic preparedness, Israeli Palestinian issues and U.S. embassy assaults paint him, at best, as a foreign policy neophyte.
And his secretly recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser drew an unreasonably sharp line between those who pay income taxes and “the 47 percent” of Americans who only take and would never support him, anyway. These ill-advised statements offended many and played directly into the Obama campaign’s picture of an excessively wealthy candidate out of touch with the common man.
Not his finest moment, nor was it the lone defining one for Romney. What we’ve seen of him over many years — from business success to running a state to impeccable personal and family attributes — convinces this newspaper that the time is right for someone with his broad skill set.
Obama himself once said that if he didn’t repair the economy “in three years, this would be a one-term proposition.” The facts show it’s time for a principled, pragmatic leader who can get Washington working again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)