Catherine Herridge Reports New Details on Benghazi

At Fox News, "Early Briefings on Libya Strike Focused on Al Qaeda, Before Story Changed":

Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.

The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day -- and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.

The Sept. 13 assessment was based on intercepts that included individuals, believed to have participated in the attack, who were celebratory -- as well as a claim of responsibility.

FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.

Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.

Fox News is told that the Petraeus briefing on Sept. 14 conflicted with that of the FBI and NCTC.

On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs. Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired -- two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.

Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

Fox News is told that Petraeus was "absolute" in his description with few, if any, caveats. As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were "angry, disappointed and frustrated" that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.

And from Walter Russell Mead, "The Benghazi Story Refuses to Die, And It’s Hurting The President" (via Instapundit).

Deer Gets Stuck in Hurricane Surf in Monmouth County, New Jersey

Via Pat Dollard, "WATCH: Deer Trapped In Surf By Sandy":

Toronto Woman Dead After Being Struck by 'Staples' Sign During Hurricane Sandy

You just never know when your number's coming up. What a way to go.

At Toronto's Globe and Mail, "Woman dead after being hit by flying debris as Toronto braces for Sandy":

A woman in her 50s has died after flying debris hit her on the head near Keele Street and St. Clair Avenue, according to Toronto EMS.

Toronto police Staff Sergeant Bruce Morrison said the woman was walking in a parking lot when part of a sign from a nearby business became loose because of the strong wind and fell. The woman was pronounced dead at the scene around 7:30 p.m.

Toronto started feeling the effects of Hurricane Sandy earlier on Monday, with winds in the Greater Toronto Area blowing at just over 60 kilometres per hour, according to Geoff Coulson, a warning preparedness meteorologist at Environment Canada. As the region braces for an overnight onslaught of heavy wind and rain, the City of Toronto is asking residents to remove loose items outdoors and be prepared for prolonged power outages, in what could be the worst storm in decades.

“We are expecting very strong winds – in some situations up to 90 kilometres an hour – and some heavy, heavy rainfall,” Mayor Rob Ford said Monday afternoon at a hastily organized news conference.

And see Blazing Cat Fur, "No you won't see Manhattan like that often..."

NewsBusted: 'Voting for Obama is Like Losing Your Virginity...'

An inspired episode, via NewsBusters:

PETA Wants Roadside Memorial for 1,600 Pounds of Live Fish Killed in Irvine Car Crash

Priorities.

At the Los Angeles Times, "PETA wants memorial where fish died in Irvine car crash":

On behalf of a leading animal rights group, an Irvine woman is asking the city to erect a memorial at the street corner where 1,600 pounds of live fish died this month when a container truck was involved in a three-vehicle crash.

Dina Kourda, a volunteer with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, wrote to the Irvine Public Works Department to request that a sign be placed at the intersection of Walnut and Yale avenues to honor the lives of the fish -- believed to be saltwater bass -- lost in the accident.

The fish, the Orange County Register reported, were being hauled to a Ranch 99 Market, an Asian supermarket.

The fish had been stored in large tanks that cracked open as a result of the Oct. 11 accident. When firefighters opened the back of the truck, some fish flopped out, and others had already died. None of the people involved in the accident were seriously injured.

“Although such signs are traditionally reserved for human fatalities, I hope you’ll make an exception because of the enormous suffering involved in this case, in order to remind drivers that all animals – whether they’re humans, basset hounds or bass--value their lives and feel pain,” Kourda wrote.

Well, let's cut to the chase:

Craig Reem, a spokesman with the city of Irvine, said he was not familiar with the city’s procedure for dealing with such a request.

“I do think it’s fair to say we have no plans to erect a memorial,” he said.

You think?

The crash site is just down the street from my oldest boy's high school. I'm sure he'll be just crushed at the longs odds for a fish memorial at the site.

Labor Department to Delay Friday Jobs Report Until After Election?

Well, Hilda Solis is Labor Secretary, a hopelessly corrupt gravy-train Democrat if there ever was one. And this is the Obama administration, which boasts a virtually unprecedented culture of corruption. So, I won't be surprised at all.

At the Wall Street Journal, "UPDATE: Labor Department ‘Working Hard’ to Ensure Jobs Report Released on Time."

Gallup Shows Romney Up 52-46 Among Early Voters

Actually, Gallup has Romney up all around, but early voting's a leading indicator.

At Astute Bloggers, "WOW: GALLUP: ROMNEY LEADS AMONG EARLY VOTERS!"

Hurricane Sandy Carves Path of Destruction Across U.S. East Coast

At the Wall Street Journal, "Millions Are Without Power and Thousands Are Stranded; Atlantic City Is Submerged; Death Toll Is Expected to Rise":

Superstorm Sandy carved a harrowing path of destruction through the East Coast on Monday, inundating Atlantic City and sending cars floating through the streets of lower Manhattan.

Accelerating Monday evening as it made landfall on the New Jersey coast, the storm promised a legacy as one of the most damaging ever to menace the Northeast, from North Carolina to New England.

Some 3.1 million people were left without electricity across the region Monday evening—the most since the 2003 blackout. In New York, more than 250,000 Con Ed customers from 39th Street south were left without power. One of the city's major hospitals was forced to evacuate patients late Monday when its backup power system failed.

"It's sure shaping up to be a storm that will be historic in nature," said Louis Uccellini, director of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, a federal government agency.

The storm left a trail of death, and the toll is expected to mount. Two people perished in Mendham, N.J., when a tree struck their car, officials said. In New York state, at least six were killed, including a 30-year-old man who died when a tree fell on his home.

Continue reading.

And at CNN, "Sandy ravages N.Y., N.J."

Nate Silver Fast on His Way to One-Term Celebrity

Robert Stacy McCain's in Ohio hoping to get in a decent bit of reporting, despite the political disruptions caused by Hurricane Sandy. See, "FROM OHIO: Schedule Scrambled; Obama, Romney Cancel Campaign Events," and "SCENES FROM ROMNEY-RYAN RALLY."

But we're in luck. Jonathan Tobin is pulling suicide watch at Commentary, "Infallible Election Prognosticators Tend to Have Brief Careers":

Back in May 2011, the leading liberal poll analyst of this election cycle returned to his roots in an op-ed published in the New York Times. Nate Silver, who had parlayed a brilliant record as an independent numbers cruncher in the 2008 presidential election into a gig as the paper’s political blogger in the age of Obama, first made his name as a writer as a baseball guy and one of the leading exponents of new and advanced ways of looking at baseball statistics. On May 9, 2011, Silver penned a piece for the Times explaining why New York Yankees captain Derek Jeter was finished as a baseball star. Given that that the Yankees shortstop had an uncharacteristically mediocre 2010 season and was off to a slow start in 2011, it was hard to argue with Silver’s conclusion.

Except the very same day that Silver was planting Jeter’s tombstone in the Times, the future Hall-of-Famer got four hits, including two home runs in a game. I noted this embarrassing development in a blog post here titled, “The Perils of Punditry: That’s Why They Play the Games.” For my pains, I was subjected to a chorus of abuse via e-mail and Twitter from Silver’s fans, most of which knew nothing about Sabermetrics. Indeed, another Times blogger noted my criticism (which was laced with respect for Silver’s work on both baseball and politics) and ironically noted, “the jury was out” on whether the results of “one game” could disprove the great Nate.

The jury was out in May, but within a few months, Silver’s fans would be dropping that prediction of his down the proverbial memory hole as Jeter put together a stellar second half of 2011 and followed it up with a brilliant 2012 in which he led the Major Leagues in base hits. That didn’t mean Silver didn’t know what he was talking about, but it was proof that a proper understanding of what has already happened didn’t necessarily give even the smartest of researchers the ability to predict the future. Fast forward to the last days of the 2012 presidential election campaign, and it looks like that day in May wasn’t the only time Silver’s crystal ball has clouded up.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Akron Beacon Poll Finds Ohio Dead Heat at 49-49 — Presidential Race Tighter Than Obama's A**hole in a Prison Shower."

* "Nate Silver: Voice of the New Castrati."

* "If Bias Doesn't Matter Why Would Bill Maher Host Nate Silver on 'Real Time'?"

* "Oh My! Romney Back Up to 51 Percent in Gallup's Daily Tracking — Nate Silver Hardest Hit!"

* "'Grand Swami' Nate Silver Boosts O's Chances to 71.0% in Electoral College!"

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

* "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...

ADDED: There's more at Memeorandum, for example, from Elspeth Reeve "People Who Can't Do Math Are So Mad At Nate Silver." And Tim Stanley, at Telegraph UK, "Nate Silver is partisan and wrong. The voters will decide Romney v Obama, not The New York Times":

In the history of presidential elections, has there ever been such an effort by one side to poll their way to victory? While the Republicans have spoken this season about jobs and debt – willing themselves to a moral victory – the Democrats have talked constantly about how well their guy is polling in one or two states. The goal is to create a sense of inevitability, to convince the public to vote for Obama because he’s a winner and who wouldn’t want to vote for the winner? We’ve witnessed the evolution of polling from an objective gauge of the public mood to a propaganda tool: partisan and inaccurate.

Step forward Nate Silver of the New York Times. Nate has been an open supporter of the President and his newspaper just endorsed Obama (although it also went for Dukakis, so it ain’t that good at picking winners). But context doesn’t matter because maths is maths and maths can’t lie – and Nate says that, according to his model, Obama has a 74.6 per cent chance of winning. You might find that figure a little odd given that on the same page you’ll see that Obama is ahead by less than 3 per cent nationally and his advantage lies in one state, Ohio. It’s even odder when you consider how it conflicts with other polls that emerged this weekend giving a virtual tie in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It’s damn near-surreal when you discover that Gallup puts Romney ahead by four points among (and this distinction is critical) likely voters. Meanwhile, Obama’s job approval rating is heading downwards. Does Nate know something that the rest of the world doesn’t?

Actually, no. Nate Silver's an idiot, plain an simple, the mouthpiece for the "New Castrati."

Continue reading about the polling clown wonder boy.

STILL MORE: At Legal Insurrection, "If Nate Silver cannot be wrong, how can he be right?":

I find the whole focus on Silver and his presidential election “model” to be particularly annoying...

Well, Silver's obvious bias is annoying, but RTWT.

Support Crashes for California's Proposition 30

The Los Angeles Times released a number of poll findings over the last week, but I've been focused on national politics. The raw survey is here. And here's the write-up on the tanking support for this ridiculous tax-hike initiative, "Support plunges for Prop. 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative":

SACRAMENTO — Support has plunged for Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to raise billions of dollars in taxes, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll shows, with less than half of voters planning to cast ballots in favor of the measure.

Only 46% of registered voters now support Brown's initiative, a 9-point drop over the last month, and 42% oppose it. The findings follow a lackluster month of campaigning by the governor, who had spent little time on the stump and found himself fighting off attacks from backers of a separate ballot measure that would raise taxes for schools.

Although Brown recently launched a frantic push for votes, both proposals could fail. Tax measures rarely gain support in the closing days of a campaign.

Proposition 30 would temporarily raise taxes on individuals earning more than $250,000 a year and impose a quarter-cent hike in the state sales tax. Enthusiasm for the governor's plan has fallen across the political spectrum.

The steepest decline is among voters who register without a party preference — a crucial voting bloc for Brown. Support from those Californians dropped from 63% a month ago to 48%.

"Proposition 30 has been under attack from the left and the right," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. "It has taken a toll."

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,504 registered voters by telephone from Oct. 15 to Oct. 21. It was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic firm, in conjunction with American Viewpoint, a Republican company. The margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

The Los Angeles Times editorial page endorsed the measure, mainly because the initiative's funding doesn't have to be spent on education! But see the Stockton Record, "Proposition 30 is voter manipulation at its finest":

Gov. Brown and proponents of Prop. 30 make it seem like Prop. 30 requires education cuts by saying that the initiative prevents them. But, there is nothing in Prop. 30 that mandates funding cuts to education if it doesn't pass. The governor and the Legislature can change the budget at any time. They have made a choice to cut education. This is voter manipulation at its finest. The message the governor is sending is essentially this: "Give us more money or we're taking it out on schools."

Sacramento politicians are notorious for poor budgeting. Voting yes on Prop. 30 sends a message that we are OK with the tax-and-spend system that is crippling California. We all want good schools, but Prop. 30 doesn't help them. Prop 30 is another ploy from Sacramento politicians to get us to hand over more of our tax dollars. This November, Californians must say enough is enough. Vote no on Prop. 30.

Young Voters Burned Out on Barack

Well, the Millenials are fried, but hey, Team O's plugging away for the next generation of Obamabots!

See the Los Angeles Times, "Young voters' lack of fervor hurting Obama":

BOULDER, Colo. — They turned out in huge numbers and overwhelmingly cast their ballots for Barack Obama, voting not just for a politician but the leader of a cause that seemed both epic and transformational.

But four years later, many young voters — facing high unemployment and diminished dreams — regard the presidential race as a less-than-inspiring choice between two thoroughly conventional candidates.

There is little doubt Obama will again win a majority of the youth vote against Republican Mitt Romney, as Democrats have in all but three presidential elections since 18-year-olds started voting in 1972.

The more important question is whether the turnout matches that of 2008, a factor that could decide the outcome in several battleground states — North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado among them — and ultimately determine who wins the White House on Nov. 6.

Luke DeGregori, a University of Colorado physics student, is typical. The lanky 19-year-old couldn't vote four years ago, but remembers the enthusiasm surrounding Obama's historic candidacy. His parents had a yard sign outside their Denver home and Obama bumper stickers on both their cars. Today, DeGregori, a Democrat, drives one of those cars and keeps the bumper sticker "because I still kind of support Obama."

He is disappointed, though, that the president turned out to be "just another conformist politician."

"Most friends I know are kind of like me," DeGregori said, pausing between decorating classrooms for a campus Halloween party. "They're going to vote for Obama, but it's not an enthusiastic vote. It's just we prefer Obama over Romney.

Pat Caddell on Jeanine Pirro Fox News Weekend

At Astute Bloggers, "COULTER AND CADDELL DEMOLISH OBAMA AND THE LEGACY MEDIA."

BONUS: "Media Blackout: Aside from FOX, Sunday News Hosts Fail to Raise Benghazi."

Obama's Cult of Progressive 'Hope and Change' Comes Crashing Down

From Glenn Reynolds, at the New York Post, "Broken promises: O has dashed lefties’ hopes":

As the 2012 presidential campaign winds to a close — it’s mostly about Big Bird and binders, apparently — it’s hard to recall the heady days of 2008. But thinking back, things have really gone downhill.

Four years ago, remember, we were told that electing Barack Obama as president would bring about an unprecedented degree of racial healing, and usher in a postracial society to match our new postracial president.

Foreigners would love us — Arabs and Third-Worlders because he was black with an Arabic name; Europeans because he wasn’t George W. Bush.
Bush’s ginned up “War On Terror” would fade away, extrajudicial killings would stop, Guantanamo would close and there would be no more undeclared wars in foreign lands. Our diplomats would be respected, and the world would be our oyster.

At home, the hypercompetent Obama would review budgets line-by-line for waste, fight pork and cut the deficit in half by his first term. We’d have unprecedented government transparency, and a new, post-partisan political style in which rational argument would replace division and name-calling. The drug war would ease, and those nasty Bush-era warrantless wiretaps would cease.

Also, under the enlightened economic stewardship of the Obama administration, the economy would recover, unemployment would be held down and housing would recover.

Well, not so much....

Continue.

I think the expectations were a little high to begin with, but O's been pretty much fail all around.

Monster Storm Targets East

At the Wall Street Journal, "Coastal Residents Evacuated, Flights Canceled as Hurricane Sandy Approaches":

Hurricane Sandy loomed Sunday over the northeastern U.S., triggering evacuation orders for hundreds of thousands of residents, the cancellation of nearly 8,000 airline flights and the mass closure of schools and public transit systems, as authorities warned of heavy rains, high winds and flooding when the storm reaches land late Monday or early Tuesday.

The Category 1 hurricane was forecast to drop 8 inches of rain on northeastern North Carolina and up to a foot in parts of the mid-Atlantic states over the next few days. Forecasters described a storm footprint expected to stretch from Washington, D.C., north to Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. The National Weather Service said two cold fronts, one west of Hurricane Sandy and another north, were drawing the warm-air hurricane toward the populous coast and expected to fortify Sandy's reach and intensity.

The unusual weather confluence will turn Sandy into a post-tropical cyclone, or nor'easter, unleashing record low-pressure readings and wind gusts to 70 miles an hour as far inland as western Pennsylvania and western New York, the National Weather Service said.

More at that top link.

And at CNN, "Sandy disrupts campaigns; impact on race too early to tell."

Also at Instapundit, "FOR SANDY UPDATES, follow Brendan Loy on Twitter." And Memeorandum.

Obama's Independent Problem

From Chris Cillizza, at the Washington Post:

President Obama has a problem with independents. And it’s not a small problem.

In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.

That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

And if Romney’s large margin among independents holds, it will be a break not just from 2008 but also from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won independents by 47 percent to 45 percent over Vice President Al Gore. Four years later, Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts essentially split unaffiliated voters, according to exit polls — 48 percent for Bush to 49 percent for Kerry. (Independents made up 27 percent of the vote in 2000 and 26 percent in 2004.)

Okay, but don't get cocky, as Glenn Reynolds always says.

'I Pledge'

From Reason.tv.

The creepy original is here.

Giants Win World Series After Sweeping Tigers

Some of the most dominating baseball I've ever seen.

The New York Times reports:

On 1-1, Cabrera goes fishing for a breaking ball away and misses, 1-2. Takes a pitch, 2-2, fouls off the next. Then Romo freezes him with a fastball for strike three, striking out the side, and the jumping, rolling, hat-throwing celebration begins in the middle of the infield.

Giants win, 4-3, in 10 innings, for their second world championship in three years.

Also at USA Today, "Giants sweep Tigers for World Series title":

12:02AM EDT October 29. 2012 - DETROIT – They took the hard, winding road to the World Series, then discovered the direct path.

The San Francisco Giants, who survived six elimination games in the playoffs, closed out a four-game sweep of the Detroit Tigers with a 4-3 victory in 10 innings Sunday night to win their second World Series in three years.

Marco Scutaro drove in Ryan Theriot with a two-out RBI single in the 10th for the winning score. Theriot had opened the inning with a single off Detroit closer Phil Coke, pitching his second inning, and advanced to second on a sacrifice bunt.

Sergio Romo got the save for the Giants, who defeated the Texas Rangers in five games in 2010 for their first World Series crown since moving to San Francisco in 1958.

Pablo Sandoval, who hit three home runs in Game 1, was named MVP of the World Series.

"We're just happy right now," Buster Posey said. "This tonight was a fitting way for us to end it. Those guys played hard; they didn't stop."

Continue reading.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

And see Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Roundup..."

Also at Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies..."

CREDIT: Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Remember In November."

World Series Rule 5

Well, the Giants could wrap up a sweep tonight, and I'm sure folks will be enjoying a few cold ones during the game, so here you go.

Proof Positive starts things off with "Friday Night Babe - Alyson Hannigan!" And also, "Saturday Linkaround."

More over at Pirate's Coves, "If All You See…", and "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup."

And forget the hopeless left-wing idiocy, she's looking good, at WyBlog, "Obamabot Eva Longoria dumped Jets QB Mark Sanchez hours before Sunday's loss to the Patriots."

More sports at Randy's Roundtable, "Cowboys Host Giants Today." Yeah, and the Giants are up 23-7 as I write this. Bonus: Angie Harmon is live tweeting.

That's all for now. Add your Rule 5 links at the comments and I'll update!

Barack Obama's Never-Ending Lies

Dorothy Rabinowitz said it a week or so ago, "All administrations conceal, falsify and tell lies—this is understood..." But the scale of deceit in the Obama White House is literally unprecedented in modern American politics.

Matt Welch has a devastating essay on this at the New York Post:

Do you vote for presidents who repeatedly lie to you? I don’t.

President Obama lied in his 2010 State of the Union Address when he said his administration had “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” (in fact, he had 40 ex-lobbyists then, and 54 now, according to the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney). He lied that year when he said “We are on the path to cutting our deficits in half,” and he’s lying this year when he says his new plan would cut the deficit by $4.3 trillion (more like $2 trillion). Obama lied when he said his signature health-care plan represented a triumph of the little man over special interests (it was precisely the opposite). He lied when he said the Congressional Budget Office concluded that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion (it’s complicated, but no), and he, uh, forecasted incorrectly when he insisted that the typical family’s insurance premiums would go down $2,500 a year (they have instead gone up).

The administration’s reaction to the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi — lie, lie, lie and lie....

And for that, he will never get my vote.

BONUS: Check out the phenomenal roundup on the lies, at Nice Deb, "Video: Senator Portman Calls Obama Out: We Need to Find Out if POTUS Issued a Directive or Not."

PREVIOUSLY: "'We Watched Our People Die and Did Nothing...'"