Boca Raton Presidential Debate — FULL VIDEO

Here's William Jacobson's comments, "Best Tweets of the Final Debate — Romney as The President, Obama as desperate challenger":

This was a strange debate. It was as if Romney were the incumbent and Obama was the challenger. I felt that Romney was running out the clock from the start, trying not to make any gaffes, proving he is worldly and reasonable.

Obama was the aggressor, both in words and demeanor. To that extent, Obama scored “points” but not points that ultimately make a difference.

If Obama’s job was to disqualify Romney as a potential President, someone too reckless for the job, Obama completely failed. Which means that for Romney, tonight was Mission Accomplished.

Tonight’s debate will not change the trajectory of the election, and that is good for Romney.

And see Michelle Malkin on Twitter:

Romney: "I'll get people working again. American can come back. This nation is the hope of the earth. Take the torch of freedom."
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 23, 2012

That's why Mitt Romney killed this debate. He's optimistic and looking toward the future. He affirms America's greatness, with no apologies. He's hopeful and not stuck on bemoaning the "policies that got us into to this mess in the first place," like a bleedin' crybaby, unable to lead. Romney's championing the policies that will get us out of it. The election can't come to soon. The American people are going to send O on a long golfing retirement.

PREVIOUSLY: "'Horses and Bayonets'", and "Charles Krauthammer: 'Romney Went Large; Obama Went Very, Very Small — Almost Shockingly Small ...'"

Charles Krauthammer: 'Romney Went Large; Obama Went Very, Very Small — Almost Shockingly Small ...'

Sir Charles eviscerates O's performance:

PREVIOUSLY: "'Horses and Bayonets'."

'Horses and Bayonets'

At Twitchy, "Obama compares naval ships to horses and bayonets; Twitter explodes in snark-storm; Marines fact check Obama."

Also at CNN, "TRENDING: ‘Horses and bayonets’ shows Obama's debate strategy" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, "CNN Poll: Nearly half of debate watchers say Obama won showdown."

Great, that's what they said about the second debate at Hofstra --- that Obama won, and Romney kept surging in the polls anyway. The buzz tonight says that the debate won't change the basic trajectory of the race, which is bad news for President Eye Candy. He needed to put Romney away. He sure gave it his all, although he inadvertently revealed that his primary debate strategy was the Joe "Blowhard" Biden model of bluster and bulls*t.

He was really that bad. Folks are zeroing in, for example, on "THE STARE"!! See, "There’s that laser-like focus: Obama ‘death stare’ is the new Biden smirk."

ADDED: At Big Government, "CNN Poll: More Voters Likely to Switch to Romney."

Nate Silver's Flawed Model

From Josh Jordan, at National Review, "The New York Times number cruncher lets his partisanship show":

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.” — Homer Simpson.

In the days before the first debate in Denver, President Obama held more than a four-point lead in the Real Clear Politics average, and Romney had been left for dead by most of the media. Then the debate came, and overnight Romney seemingly rid himself of the weaknesses that had been tacked on to him by over $100 million dollars in negative advertising. Now here we are a few weeks later with a dead heat in nationwide polls.

As worry built up among Democrats that Romney had tied the race nationally and had clear momentum heading into the final stretch, they began attaching their hopes to what BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith called “the bulwark against all-out Dem panic” — Nate Silver.

Silver gained fame by correctly predicting 49 of 50 states in the 2008 election using a statistical model that assigns weight to the various polls based on a number of factors. After the 2008 election, Silver partnered with the New York Times, and he has been quoted by many media outlets as the gold standard for predicting what will happen in November.

Some note that 2008 was a wave election, where the enthusiasm and underlying fundamentals were so favorable to Obama that the outcome was easy to foresee, with the exception of a few of the GOP-turned-Democratic states such as Indiana and North Carolina where Obama won a razor-thin victory. Others argue that Silver’s access to the Obama administration’s internal polling gave him information that most other analysts never saw, which allowed him to make more adjustments to his model and increase his accuracy.

Whatever the explanation, Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism. While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.

Oh, he's "openly rooting" for Obama alright. He's practically giving the president fellato by predictive ratio. But read it all at the link (via Jonathan Tobin).

You know, Silver's really getting to know the inside of that woodshed, like the back of his hand!

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters."

* "ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!"

* "'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'"

* "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

I'll have more on this later.

I hesitate to call this series the "Nate Silver suicide watch." I mean, gosh, I'd feel horrible for the wonder boy if something bad happened to him after November 6th.

'Obama was presented as unbeatable, and a lot of people believed it — until, suddenly, he looked kind of beatable after all...'

From Glenn Reynolds' new column, at USA Today, "Will cocooned liberals be surprised by Romney?"

Actually, I doubt Obama's progressive fascists will be surprised. They're already pledging to burn down the White House if Romney wins. And I imagine we'll be seeing more fascist violence, like today's vicious attack on Mitt Romney supporter Sean Kedzie, the son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie, a Republican.

The writing's on the wall.

Don't back down to the progressive thugs. Stand up to them. Get in their faces. And hit back twice as hard if you're attacked.

Hot Momma! Natalie Portman Smokin' Film Set Photos From New Terrence Malick Movie

Another round of pre-debate Rule 5, via London's Daily Mail, "Hot momma! Natalie Portman sizzles on the set of her latest film as she cozies up to Michael Fassbender."

And recall that Ms. Portman was my original Rule 5 hottie, "Natalie Portman Gets Results!"

Even Robert Stacy McCain was impressed, "Natalie Portman on a slim pretext."

And speaking of the Other McCain, from yesterday, "Rule 5 Sunday: Pulchritudinous Power Hour."

I'll have some post-debate analysis later...

Son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie Attacked by Anti-Romney Fascists!

Obama fascists.

Obama criminals and fascists.

When you can't win on the merits, resort to violence and intimidation. The the progressive fascists of the Obama left for you. The assholes. You have to stand up to these people. Say a prayer with me for Sean Kedzie, the son of Republican State Senator Neal Kedzie of Wisconsin.

Rebel Pundit Reports, at Big Government, "WISCONSIN SENATOR'S SON BEATEN TO PULP BY ANTI-ROMNEY THUGS" (via Memeorandum). And at Gateway Pundit, "OBAMA GOONS Beat Crap Out of Son of Wisconsin Senate Republican."

And see WMTV-NBC 15, Madison, Wisconsin, "Son of State Senator Neal Kedzie Attacked":

State Senator Neal Kedzie says his son was attacked while trying to stop someone from stealing his Romney/Ryan yard sign.

Whitewater Police tell NBC15 News this is an active investigation.

Here is the statement released by Senator Neal Kedzie:

Early on Friday morning, October 19th, my son Sean was awakened by noises outside his residence in Whitewater. As he went to see what the commotion was about, he noticed an individual removing a Romney/Ryan yard sign from his property. He yelled to the person that they were taking something not theirs and to return it immediately.

The individual returned the sign, however, a second person confronted and attacked Sean without warning.

Sean was wrestled to the ground by both persons, held down by a constricting chokehold, and struck repeatedly about the face and head.

He nearly passed out from the chokehold and suffered contusions to his face and eyes.

Fortunately, an alert neighbor heard the commotion, scared the individuals away, and called the police.

More at the link.

Colorado: Romney 50%, Obama 46%

At Rasmussen:

Mitt Romney has now reached the 50% mark for the first time in Colorado and leads President Obama by four in the critical swing state.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Colorado Voters finds Romney with 50% support to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and one percent (1%) remains undecided....

Still, Colorado remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. But Colorado is the fourth swing state that has moved in Romney’s direction in the past week. Florida, Missouri and North Carolina have now shifted from Toss-Up to Leans Romney.

Yeah, well, the biggest worry is Ohio, but things are looking up there for the Republicans. See the New York Times, "Ohio Race Tightens in New Poll" (via Memeorandum). That's the Times' Quinnipiac, which is oversampling Democrats. Here's Rasmussen from two days ago: "Election 2012: Ohio President - Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 48%." That's probably more like it, and we've still got election day, and the Romney ground game enthusiasm to factor in.

BONUS: A new ad from the Romney campaign: "The Clear Choice For Colorado."

Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters

It's been a week since the Hoftra debate --- the "how dare you imply that my administration lied" debate --- and President Eye Candy's numbers are going in the wrong direction. Mitt Romney regained a point in the daily tracking, again up 52 to 45 percent in the presidential horse race. Somewhere Nate Silver is cowering in shame.

See: "Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney - Among likely voters."

RELATED: At Politico, "Battleground Tracking Poll: Mitt Romney takes lead" (at Memeorandum):

DELRAY BEACH, Fla. — Mitt Romney has taken a narrow national lead, tightened the gender gap and expanded his edge over President Barack Obama on who would best grow the economy.

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of 1,000 likely voters — taken from Sunday through Thursday of last week — shows Romney ahead of Obama by two points, 49 to 47 percent. That represents a three-point swing in the GOP nominee’s direction from a week ago but is still within the margin of error. Obama led 49 percent to 48 percent the week before.

Romney has not led in the poll since the beginning of May.

Across the 10 states identified by POLITICO as competitive, Romney leads 50 to 48 percent.

See also Ed Morrissey, "Romney edges into 49/47 lead in Politico/GWU Battleground poll."

More later...

Uh Oh. The New York Times Goes Critical With Front-Page Libya Report on Debate Day

Early in my reporting on the cover up I noted that the news would be getting so bad for the White House that even Obama's staunchest enablers in the press wouldn't long be able to defend him.

The New York Times isn't quite there yet, but it's close.

See, "Explanation for Benghazi Attack Under Scrutiny":

WASHINGTON — Even as Susan E. Rice took to the Sunday talk shows last month to describe the Obama administration’s assessment of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, intelligence analysts suspected that the explanation was outdated.

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

Later that Sunday, though, American intelligence analysts were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment. It would be several days, however, before the intelligence agencies changed their formal assessment based on those new reports, and informed administration officials about the change. Intelligence officials say such a lag is typical of the ever-changing process of piecing together shards of information into a coherent picture fit for officials’ public statements.

Gov. Mitt Romney and Congressional Republicans have sharply criticized Ms. Rice’s comments and the administration’s shifting public positions on the cause of the attack, criticisms that Mr. Romney will probably reprise in the final presidential debate on Monday night.

On Sunday, Congressional Republicans cited the administration’s response to the attack as symptomatic of larger leadership failings. “This is going to be a case study, studied for years, of a breakdown of national security at every level, failed presidential leadership — senior members of the Obama administration failed miserably,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The gap between the talking points prepared for Ms. Rice and the contemporaneous field reports that seemed to paint a much different picture illustrates how the process of turning raw field reports, which officials say need to be vetted and assessed, into polished intelligence assessments can take days, long enough to make them outdated by the time senior American officials utter them.

Intelligence officials, alarmed that their work has been turned into a political football, defend their approach, noting that senior administration officials receive daily briefings that reflect the consensus of the nation’s array of intelligence agencies, but can also dip into the fast-moving stream of field reports, with the caveat that that information is incomplete and may be flat wrong.

“A demand for an explanation that is quick, definite and unchanging reflects a naïve expectation — or in the present case, irresponsible politicking,” James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said at an intelligence symposium on Oct. 9.

The Associated Press reported Friday, for instance, that within 24 hours of the attack, the C.I.A.’s station chief in Tripoli, Libya, e-mailed headquarters that witnesses said the assault was mounted by heavily armed militants. But intelligence officials said Sunday that one report was not enough to establish the attack’s nature.

More at that top link.

It's damaging just having this story in the news day after day, with back and forth explanations for why the administration can't keep its story lines straight. After a while the average person wises up to being deceived. The Democrat-Media-Complex can sustain the lies for only so long. And this stuff is on the front page at the nation's paper of record on the day of the final debate on foreign policy. Can you say high stakes? There's even more on A1, "Benghazi and Arab Spring Rear Up in U.S. Campaign." "Rears up" alright. Rears up its ugly head. The administration's foreign policy has completely deconstructed, violently. By now it's all about attempting to maintain perceptions of control. Hey, how's that going for you, Baracky? Here's that Dorothy Rabinowitz piece, ICYMI, "The Unreality of the Past Four Years."

PREVIOUSLY: "Leftists Tout Politically-Driven Intelligence Revisions on Obama's Benghazi Massacre Clusterf-k."

The Obama White House in Crisis Mode

From Dorothy Rabinowitz, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Unreality of the Past Four Years":

In the 1967 film "A Guide for the Married Man," a husband, played by a peerless Walter Matthau, is given lessons in ways to cheat on his wife safely. The most essential rule: "Deny! Deny! Deny!"—no matter what. In an instructive scene, he's shown a wife undone by shock, and screaming, with reason: She has just walked in on her husband making love to a glamorous stranger.

"What are you doing," she wails, "who is that woman?"

"What woman, where?" the husband serenely counters, as he and the tart in question get out of bed and calmly dress.

So the scene proceeds, with the distraught wife pointing to the woman she clearly sees before her, while her husband, unruffled, continues to look blankly at her, asking, "What woman?" Confused by her spouse's unblinking assurance, she gives up. Two minutes later she's asking him what he'd like for dinner.

For much of the past four years, the Obama administration's propensity for asserting views of reality wildly at odds with those evident to most rational citizens has looked increasingly like a page from that film script.

All administrations conceal, falsify and tell lies—this is understood—but there's no missing the distinctive quality of the prevaricating issuing from the White House in these four years.

It's a quality on vivid display now in the administration's mesmerizing narrative of the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya. Here's a memorable picture, its detail brutally illuminating, of Obama and company in crisis mode over their conflicting stories about who knew what when. The resulting costs to truth-telling and sanity, or even the appearance thereof, are clear. Nor can we forget the strong element of farce—think U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on those five Sunday talk shows, reciting with unflagging fervor that official talking point regarding mob violence and a YouTube video. Farce, but no one is laughing.

I love Rabinowitz. She's a wonderful writer.

Continue reading.

A Migration in Reverse

The most interesting thing about this story is the intense poverty seen in Mexico, where the American kids end up after their illegal immigrant family members get deported.

See, "Caught in the current of reverse migration."

The photos are here, "Teenager’s identity lies on both sides of the border."

Giants Force Game Seven

I watched the entire game after taking most of the day off yesterday from blogging.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Vogelsong Leads Giants Over Cardinals to Force Game 7":

SAN FRANCISCO–Two years ago, Ryan Vogelsong was a Triple-A washout and Barry Zito was a major-league bust. Today, of all people, they are the primary reasons the San Francisco Giants are still alive in the National League Championship Series.

After Zito’s improbable gem spared the Giants elimination in Game 5, Vogelsong continued the pitching revival tour by dominating the St. Louis Cardinals in Game 6 on Sunday night at AT&T Park. He allowed just one run in seven innings in the Giants’ 6-1 win, which tied the best-of-seven series at three games apiece. Game 7 is Monday night in San Francisco.

“I didn’t want to let these guys down,” Vogelsong said. “I didn’t want to let the city down.”

The Giants are a team known for their elite pitching...

Continue reading.

That was one of the most commanding outings I've seen in a long time. The dude was just ringing 'em up, and he pitched a career-high of nine strikeouts. A phenomenal performance.

ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!

My goodness.

The stakes are high, for Nate Silver!

If Obama loses that poor man's world is going to come crashing down, and hard.

And he's so geeky it's hard to watch. If he's fired by the New York Times after the election it's a good bet he won't be landing a job as a television news anchorman. Jeez, did he even wash his hair? Ugh!

PREVIOUSLY: "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

Obama Plays Politics With National Security

It's so transparently political it's ridiculous.

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Iran Talks Gambit":

'This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That's what President Obama was overheard telling then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in March on an open microphone when he thought he was speaking privately. The exchange is worth recalling with the weekend story that the White House has agreed "in principle" to a bilateral meeting with Iran on its nuclear weapons program—after the election.

A White House spokesman immediately denied the New York Times report "that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections." But he added that "we continue to work" with other nations "on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."

We'll go with the New York Times on this one. Someone senior clearly was bragging about the one-on-one deal, and probably because the source or sources thought it would help Mr. Obama. The timing also is suspicious coming before Monday's foreign-policy debate, and while the White House is on defense about its security failures in Benghazi. The Times's dispatch treated the news as a diplomatic breakthrough that could make Mr. Obama look like a peacemaker and put Mitt Romney on the spot. The safe bet is that something is going on that the President hopes to unveil formally after the election.

As with so much else about Mr. Obama's second-term agenda, the question is why he won't elaborate before November 6. On taxes and spending, Mr. Obama doesn't want to say because he knows more of the same economic policies aren't popular...

Most Swing States Have Lost Jobs Since Obama Took Office

At IBD, "Obama Job Losses Hit 7 of 10 Battleground States":

Seven out of the 10 presidential toss-up states have lost jobs since President Obama took office, and the unemployment rate is higher today in six of those states than in January 2009, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What's more, six of those states listed as toss-ups by Real Clear Politics have seen their labor force shrink since January 2009, which masks the true size of their unemployment problem.

The state data underscore the fact that, despite the recent drop in the national unemployment rate to 7.8%, the nation's jobs picture remains bleak, particularly in states that Obama and Mitt Romney are fighting over.

The BLS report notes that in September, 41 states saw unemployment drop compared with August, and 35 states gained payroll jobs.

But the data also show that, since Obama took office, fully 32 states have seen a net decline in the number of jobs, and the unemployment rate is still higher in 27 states than it was in January 2009.

In addition, 24 states saw their labor force shrink since Obama took office. That can make the unemployment rate appear lower in those states, since people who've left the labor force don't count as unemployed.

And several swing states have seen significant declines in their labor force under Obama, which means their employment picture is far worse than advertised.

Ohio's True Picture

Ohio's official unemployment rate for example, is 7%, down from 8.6% when Obama took office. But that decline was entirely due to 193,362 people dropping out of the labor force under Obama — either they quit looking or moved to another state.

Had that drop not occurred, Ohio's unemployment rate would be a staggering 10%. Michigan has suffered the same fate. Its official unemployment rate is down to 9.3% from 11.3% when Obama took office. But the state's jobless rate would be 13.8% if the state's labor force hadn't shrunk by almost a quarter million since January 2009.

RTWT.

The voters aren't fooled by the unemployment numbers. When you're hurtin' you just vote your pocketbook. Lots of folk'll be doing that, and I doubt they'll be voting for "The One."

Romney Surges to Tie Obama in National Poll

The Wall Street Journal's probably been oversampling Democrats. So I'm surprised that Romney's now tied in this latest survey, at least among likely voters. The interesting thing, though, is that the survey was conducted after the so-called debate victory for the president last Tuesday at Hoftra. While he may have won the debate, he's been losing the post-debate spin.

At WSJ (via Memeorandum):

A late surge in support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has put him in a dead heat with President Barack Obama with just over two weeks to go before the election, according to a new nationwide Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday.

Among likely voters, the candidates are now tied, 47% to 47%, in a race that appears on track to be one of the closest in U.S. history.

Mr. Romney has pulled abreast of the president for the first time all year in the Journal poll, erasing a three-point lead among likely voters that Mr. Obama had in late September and a five-point lead earlier that month. Mr. Romney's surge followed his strong debate performance in Denver early this month and a contentious second debate with Mr. Obama last week.

With the contest deadlocked and just 5% of voters undecided, the campaigns will now turn heavily to state-by-state efforts to rouse their base and get out the vote.

The poll found Mr. Romney with a wide lead among men, 53% to 43%, while Mr. Obama continues to maintain an advantage among women, 51% to 43%. Mr. Romney's edge among men has grown over the past month, while Mr. Obama's lead among women has slightly diminished.

The poll of 816 likely voters was taken Oct. 17-20, after last week's presidential debate in New York. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.43 percentage points for likely voters.

More at NBC News and Memeorandum.

George McGovern Has Died

McGovern was further to the left than Lyndon Baines Johnson but somehow still remained a Cold War liberal. His party, however, was becoming a New Left organization grounded in radical theories of anti-Americanism and coercivie economic distribution. The full flowering of that ideology burst forth during the Iraq War in 2004, when the Democrats in Congress turned on their own country and stabbed in the back the very men and women they sent to war the previous year. Perhaps McGovern, who flew B-24 bombing raids over Germany in World War II, is the last of a breed, a stalwart of modern American liberalism, of the non-communist variety. I'm sure some might say I'm being too generous, but I'll leave it at that. I saw McGovern speak back at Fresno State around 1990. He seemed like a very decent man. (But folks might check Daniel Flynn, at FrontPage Magazine, "How George McGovern and the Left Polarized America.")

At the New York Times, "George McGovern | 1922-2012: George McGovern, a Democratic Presidential Nominee and Liberal Stalwart, Dies at 90" (at Memeorandum).

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons.

Barack Obama and Republican Rival Mitt Romney Prepare for Crucial Third and Final Presidential Debate

At Independent UK:

President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney both took a break from the campaign trail this weekend to prepare for tomorrow's third and final presidential debate, their last chance to directly confront each other before millions of TV viewers with polls showing the race deadlocked.

The 90-minute debate in Boca Raton, Florida, focusing on foreign policy comes just 15 days before the November 6 election.

Its moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has listed five subject areas, with more time devoted to the Middle East and terrorism than any other topic.

While the economy has been the dominant theme of the election, foreign policy has attracted renewed media attention in the aftermath of last month's attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Mr Obama had ranked well with the public on his handling of international issues and in fighting terrorism, especially following the death of Osama bin Laden.

But the administration's response to the Libya attack and questions over levels of security at the consulate have given Mr Romney and his Republican allies an issue with which to raise doubts about Mr Obama's foreign policy leadership.

Mr Romney's team has focused on Libya, following reports that Obama's administration could have known early on that militants, not protesters angry over a film produced in the US that ridiculed Islam, launched the attack that killed the US ambassador there.

More at the link.

It's going to be good.

PREVIOUSLY: "Death and Deceit in Benghazi."

Image Credit: The Looking Spoon, "The Two Choices Romney and Obama Represent."

Cover-Up: The Three Benghazi Timelines

I was calling this scandal a cover-up within days of the initial reports. The deceit is so brazen it's almost shocking. Almost. This is the Obama administration after all, and it's fundamentally steeped in corruption. 

From James Rosen at the Wall Street Journal, "Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment":

If the Obama White House has engaged in a coverup in the Benghazi case, the ostensible motivation would bear some similarity to that of all the president's men in Watergate. Mr. Obama faces a rendezvous with the voters on Nov. 6, and in a race much tighter than the Nixon-McGovern contest of 1972. In such a circumstance, certain kinds of disclosure are always unwelcome.

As with the Watergate conspirators, who were eager to conceal earlier actions that related to the Vietnam War, the Obama team is determined to portray its pre-9/11 conduct, and particularly its dovish Mideast policies, in the most favorable light. After all, no one wants to have on his hands—even if resulting from sins of omission and not commission—the deaths of four American patriots. Or as Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart on Comedy Central this week, the deaths were "not optimal."

Ms. Lamb, in her congressional testimony, said that from her command center in Washington she was able to track the lethal events of Benghazi in something akin to real time. She was in constant communication with the agent on the consulate grounds who first notified Washington that an assault—"attack, attack," the agent said—was under way. Ms. Lamb also said that the State Department was receiving a steady stream of data on the afternoon of Sept. 11 indicating that terrorism was afoot. Such admissions are what have given rise to charges of a coverup.

"Everyone had the same intelligence," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fox News last week. But that also appears untrue. How information immediately made known to an assistant secretary of state could somehow be withheld for eight days from the secretary of state herself—and from our U.N. ambassador, from the director of national intelligence, from the analytic corps at the Central Intelligence Agency, from the president's chief spokesman, and from the president himself—now forms the central question in the Benghazi affair.

In Tuesday night's debate with Mitt Romney, President Obama claimed to have "told" the American people that Benghazi was a terror attack the very next day, Sept. 12, when speaking from the Rose Garden. The assertion was untrue, despite moderator Candy Crowley's ruling to the contrary. The president had only spoken generally of terror attacks, and Benghazi would have been understood to fall under that umbrella only if it had been acknowledged as a terror attack.

On Sept. 12, that was not the administration's line. Not until his afternoon appearance on "The View" on Sept. 25—the "two weeks" of delay that Mr. Romney alluded to in the debate—did the president offer Americans an explanation of Benghazi that made no reference to a protest over a video. The YouTube connection had figured prominently in his Benghazi pronouncements as late as Mr. Obama's Sept. 20 appearance on Univision, and even in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on the morning of Sept. 25.

"The business of intelligence has become politicized," says an intelligence source with knowledge of the Benghazi episode, "regardless of which party is in charge." This is an enduring legacy of Vietnam and Watergate. Now, as then, American voters horrified by loss of life in a time of war will cast ballots without having all the facts that might inform their choice.

RTWT.

I reported on that Univision interview. The questions were amazingly penetrating, what we we're largely not getting from the U.S., Obama-kept media.

And see the left's pathetic efforts at disinformation, from yesterday, "Leftists Tout Politically-Driven Intelligence Revisions on Obama's Benghazi Massacre Clusterf-k."