Apology Tour

I remember Soledad O'Brien trying to weasel out of the history of Obama's apology tour in September. She was interviewing Rep. Peter King of New York, at the time of Obama's Libya debacle. She had the Cairo speech transcript and kept saying, "He never once used the word apology," blah, blah ... So I looked it up at the time, because the idiots at Think Progress, the anti-Israel Soros-backed hate-site, were issuing the exact same denials. The definitive piece is at the Heritage Foundation, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."

And so now the issue's in the news again. Mitt Romney slammed Obama for his craven world apology tour at the Boca Raton debate. And Jennifer Rubin has a report, "The myth of the myth of apologies":

You can argue that sometimes a nation should apologize for some past conduct. You can argue that this is appropriate, but not on foreign soil. But to insist that Obama hasn’t apologized repeatedly for the United States both here and abroad is simply wrong. Frankly, he has done more of this self-flagellation in more places than any other president. It is a record that should never be broken.

And see Gateway Pundit, "Mitt Romney Camp Releases “Apology Tour”."

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon, "Obama Did Not Go On An Apology Tour..."

Emails Show White House Briefed on Benghazi Terrorism in Real Time — Ansar al-Sharia Claimed Responsibility

At ABC News, "Email Alerts Describe 9/11 Benghazi Consulate Assault Unfolding" (via Memeorandum):

A series of email alerts sent as Obama administration officials monitored the attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi last month are the latest to shine light on the chaotic events that culminated in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The names of the individual recipients of the emails, first reported by CBS News but independently obtained by ABC News Tuesday evening, are redacted. A source who requested anonymity said it appears they are sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

And that's a compelling interview with Sarah Palin at the clip. I haven't seen her this animated ---- literally angry ---- in quite some time. Here's Greta's report, "BREAKING NEWS: Emails show the Obama administration knew Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack in Benghazi."

And at London's Daily Mail, "White House knew al Qaeda-linked group claimed responsibility for deadly Libya attack just TWO HOURS later, emails reveal."

And check out this devastating piece at Youngstown News out of Ohio, "Lies being told about attack in Benghazi":

It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was ”offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a ”transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them....

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an ”investigation” under way. An ”on-going investigation” sounds so much better than ”stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this ”investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of Sept. 11 were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, ”in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming ”investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don’t need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that al-Qaida was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Neither the Los Angeles Times nor the New York Times had this breaking at their websites as of 10:15pm Pacific time, as this post was being scheduled for overnight, although Huffington Post and Reuters had the news. I'll have more on this later.

It becomes clearer by the day. The administration's been covering things up all along, and lying remorselessly. Conservatives are hammering the White House. While progressives are enabling the cover up with denials and obfuscation. We'll see how things play out for the remainder of the day. It's not going to be pretty, that's for sure.

Obama Crashing in Ohio; or, For the Love of Mercy, Leave Nate Silver Alone!

While the story's another gut-buster with respect to New York Times wonder boy Nate Silver, there's some serious implications here. But more on that after checking in with Robert Stacy McCain, "Signs and Omens: Obama’s Fading Hope and the Graveyard Whistling Choir":

Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard Whistling Choir, raising Obama to a 70.3% likelihood of victory based on . . . what?

I dunno. I’m not an expert with a New York Times column or anything, much less a Magical Forecasting Model™ that can divine future events with the precise scientific exactitude of 1/10 of one percent.

This morning, Silver told us that Ohio might be a crucial battleground, which might be news to a victim who just escaped from an underground rape-dungeon after nine months of being held hostage and tortured by a sociopathic sex offender. But to everyone else, it’s not news at all.

My apologies for the bizarre word-imagery. Debate-night aftermath, a shortage of sleep and other psychological stress sometimes have this effect on my prose. But don’t worry. After 24 debates in 16 months, I’m used to it by now. And speaking of bizarre word-imagery, Ace of Spades:

“It’s going to be a grim affair, grim and horrible and just sad, but there’ll be lots of alcohol.”

That’s in reaction to unmistakable evidence of doom and gloom in Obama’s increasingly desperate fundraising e-mails. The plural of “anecdote” is data, as they say, and you don’t need a Magical Forecasting Model™ to see the dots in this emerging gestalt pattern, including the Gloria Allred “October surprise” gambit. Never heard a peep about this until after Obama got his ass kicked in the first debate, did ya?

Keep reading.

I love that part about how silver claims Ohio "might be a crucial battleground..." I guess he's not even reading the big horse-race journalism at his own home-station newspaper. As I reported at the beginning of September, "Ohio Is Ultimate Battleground State." Cited there is a New York Times piece suggesting that Mitt Romney was facing a vital, can't-do-without test in the Buckeye State. Amazing how perceptions have turned around. Now it's Obama who's the one with the ultimate test in Ohio. See Michael Knox Beran, at National Review, "Obama Unnerved — by Ohio?":

Talk about the sullen presage of a campaign’s decay. Something was wrong with President Obama last night, to judge by his performance. Was Ohio on his mind? An AP story says that the Obama campaign is now talking about a way to win without taking the state....

That the Obama camp is even talking about losing Ohio is a stunning turn of events.

No wonder, then, that Romney seemed like the man who was winning last night. When he spoke, you thought “energy in the executive.” When Obama spoke, the words that came to mind were “fatigue,” “apathy,” “frustration.” In his closing statement the president was clearly rattled, lamely reciting talking points we’ve heard too often before, not even pretending to care about what he was saying — simply wanting it to be over. It was as though a light had gone out. Was he disconcerted by the smoothness of Romney’s performance? Or is his campaign’s internal polling in Ohio less pretty than his people are letting on?

And check this great piece from Daniel Horowitz, at Red State, "The Current Electoral College State of Play":

Two weeks before Election Day, all signs point to this being a very tight election. Romney clearly seized the momentum with his debate win two weeks ago – one which Obama failed to stop with his stronger performance last week. Most national polls show Romney with a 2-3 point lead; however, the state polls show an even tighter race.

One thing has not changed in terms of the Electoral College; the election will still boil down to Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. However, there is one major development over the past two weeks that has strengthened Romney’s hand in the Electoral College. The national surge in support for Romney has created such strong momentum in Florida, Virginia, and Colorado – both in the top line numbers and internal numbers – that it’s hard to see him losing any of those states.

So who cares? Well, once we allow for the assumption that Romney wins those three states, it is absolutely impossible – not just improbable – for Obama to win the election without Ohio. Even if he were to run the table in the rest of the battleground states (NH, IA, NV, and WI), he would still come up short. Take a look at how that would work.

Perforce, Obama cannot win without Ohio.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!"

* "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

* "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."

More later...

British Bride-to-Be Snubbed by Stoke Park Hotel as Wrong 'Type of People' is Adult Star on 'Red Light Central TV'

An amazing story.

I saw this the other day and thought it interesting, at Telegraph UK, "Not the right 'type of people': Bride and groom 'humiliated' after wedding email blunder":

A bride-to-be was left “humiliated” after trying to book an exclusive hotel for her £10,000 dream wedding, and instead receiving an email saying she and her fiance were not the right "type of people".

But now here's the update, "Bride-to-be snubbed in 'wrong type of people' hotel row is part-time glamour model":

When a five-star hotel sent Pauline Bailey an email saying that she and her fiancé were “not the type of people we want here”, she pointed to her partner’s pierced eyebrow as a possible explanation for the snub.

It emerged yesterday that Miss Bailey, 27, had not been entirely forthcoming about her own background while insisting that she and Paul Carty, 51, were “a respectable, middle-class, hard-working, well-educated couple”.

Although Miss Bailey does, as she pointed out, have a master’s degree in medical law and plans to study for a PhD, she failed to mention that she also works part-time as a glamour model on a late-night soft-porn television channel.

Calling herself “Rachel T”, she wears skimpy outfits as she takes live premium-rate phone calls from men watching her on Red Light Central TV.

Miss Bailey, from Luton, had described herself as “mortified” to receive the email from the wedding planner at the Stoke Park Hotel in Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire. She said that she and Mr Carty were left feeling like “undesirables” after Michele Connelly accidentally forwarded the message, in which she asked her boss how she could “put off” their wedding.

Yesterday, Miss Bailey confirmed that she had been working as a glamour model for five years.

Not to be outdone, London's Daily Mail has photos, "The bride who's not exactly blushing! Law graduate snubbed by wedding hotels turns out to be star of adult TV."

Well, I guess it pays to follow up on those intriguing news reports!

Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!

The suspense is over!

Wonder boy Nate Silver delivers the snap analysis, "Obama Unlikely to Get Big Debate Bounce, but a Small One Could Matter."

There is, obviously, some disagreement on the magnitude of Mr. Obama’s advantage — the polls surveyed different types of voters and applied different methods to do so.

But averaging the results from the CBS News, CNN and Google polls, which conducted surveys after all three presidential debates along with the one between the vice-presidential candidates, puts Mr. Obama’s margin at 16 points.

That compares favorably to Mr. Obama’s average 10-point margin after the second debate, and Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s 6-point margin against Representative Paul Ryan, but is smaller than Mr. Romney’s average 29-point win in Denver.

So that improves Obama chances in the Electoral College by a gazillion-ty times!!

PREVIOUSLY: "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

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

IMAGE CREDIT: Horses and Bayonets Tumblr.

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...