SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147808)11/1/2012 7:06:41 PM
From: tonto3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
I just read this on CNN

(CNN) -- The Obama administration fiddled while Benghazi burned and four Americans died.
Late last week, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News reported that CIA operators caught in the attack in Benghazi requested military backup but were denied by higher headquarters.
If true, this would exhibit fatal inaction and negligence on the part of the administration or the military's chain of command, or worse, some sort of cover-up.

William Bennett
On Friday, President Obama was asked directly by Denver's KUSA-TV's Kyle Clarke whether our forces were denied backup during the attack. The president dodged the first question. Clark followed up, "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"
"Well, we are finding out exactly what happened," the president responded. "I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."
This is different from what the president said in his Rose Garden speech on September 12, when he mentioned nothing about securing personnel the evening of the attack, or what he said to "The View" or Univision in the weeks after the attack.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

We now know that President Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. ET on the night of the attack. We also know that the first e-mail announcing the attack came in at 4:05 pm ET, about a half hour after the attack started, and that there was a drone overhead monitoring the attack and diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb was monitoring the audio feed of the attack in real time in Washington.
That night, the Commander's In-extremis Force, a special rescue team of commandos, was moved from Europe to Sigonella, Italy, about a two-hour flight from Benghazi. Also that evening, a "FAST team" (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team) of Marines in Rota, Spain, was deployed to protect the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
The Pentagon was aware of the attack and put forces into motion. All information seems to indicate President Obama or the highest-ranking officials in the White House and Pentagon knew of the attack the same evening it occurred. Which begs the all-important question: Why was no additional military aid sent to secure our personnel, like the president claimed he directed?
Shortly after the fighting started in Benghazi, the embassy in Tripoli (400 miles away) sent its own separate aid, dispatching an aircraft carrying 22 men. They didn't arrive in Benghazi until hours into the battle and were not nearly as qualified or as equipped as the Special Forces standing by in Europe.
The battle raged for seven hours, resulting in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. It finally ended at dawn the next day when Libyan militia forces showed up to aid the Americans.
Asked to explain the inaction on the part of the Pentagon, Panetta said, "The basic principle is you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place."
Contrary to Panetta's claim, we know with certainty that there was real-time information coming into Washington and the Pentagon during the attack. We are therefore left with two conflicting explanation's for the administration's inaction -- either the president's directive to secure our personnel wasn't heeded, or he didn't exactly give such a directive.
After all, as former Marine captain and former assistant secretary of defense, Bing West, has so well chronicled, directives of such serious importance would be recorded and sent throughout the chain of command.
The administration insists that aid was not declined. "Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News this past Saturday.
We will wait and see what unravels in the coming days, but regardless, the public deserves to know why, with real-time intelligence of the attack, Panetta and defense officials did not immediately send military aid to secure our personnel.
It's been more than a month since the Benghazi attacks and many of the crucial details are still unknown. Some of the mainstream media have been reticent to cover in-depth the story in Benghazi. Since the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney has been noticeably silent on Libya; he shouldn't be. Without the Republican House investigating it, one wonders whether Benghazi would be a story at all.
The death of four Americans at the hands of terrorists deserves serious and sustained attention. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The administration's first explanation, a spontaneous mob reaction to a YouTube video, has already been shattered. Now we are left putting together the real story piece by piece.
Either there was serious malfeasance on the part of this administration or a knowing cover up with shifting stories and blame. Either way, the American people deserve to know the full story of the disaster in Benghazi.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147808)11/1/2012 7:18:41 PM
From: locogringo4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
Is this a strong endorsement?

OBAMA LEFT THEM BEHIND: HUNGRY DUMPSTER DIVING IN NYC



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147808)11/1/2012 8:17:45 PM
From: DanDerr2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224729
 
And your link to this latest spin, er... cover-up!



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147808)11/1/2012 8:17:50 PM
From: Ann Corrigan6 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 






Mitt Romney Likely Victory: Politics
MAIN DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT ELECTIONS 2012

Mitt Romney likely election day victory indicated by latest polls
MITT ROMNEYNOVEMBER 1, 2012BY: DEAN CHAMBERS Subscribe



Mitt Romney maintains electoral vote lead in latest projection.

Credits:


QStarNews analysis

RELATED TOPICS Mitt Romney Barack Obama Elections 2012 Polls and Surveys Presidential Race

Advertisement

[iframe id="google_ads_iframe_229808" name="google_ads_iframe_229808" src="about:blank" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="border-width: 0px; "][/iframe]

If the election were held today Mitt Romneywould win 311 electoral votes while Barack Obama would win in states worth 227 electoral votes according to the latest polling data available today.

The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Daily Tracking poll released today shows President Obama leading over Mitt Romney by a 49 percent to 47 percent margin. The new Gallup Tracking poll released today shows Romney leading 51 percent to 46 percent. Today's release of the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll shows a 51 percent to 47 percent lead for Mitt Romney. These are the most accurate and least skewed polls among those currently included in the Real Clear Politics average of presidential polls.

The presidential race is decided by the votes of the states that send the electors to the electoral college who will actually elect the next president under our Constitution. State polls released today and recently are the basis for the analysis below. As former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris and others have pointed out, the undecided vote in a presidential election will always heavily favor the challenging candidate by election day. This analysis will be by regions of the country and the key swing states within them. The map above shows the map based on this analysis and projection of electoral votes.

Northeast: Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Vermont are strongly supporting Obama. Most of the polling RCP shows for Connecticut and Maine are old polls, but a recent Rasmussen survey for Connecticut has Obama leading by six percent, 51 percent to 45 percent. New Hampshire is the key swing state Romney leads in the non-skewed polls included in the RCP average of polls in this state. New York is solidly blue for Obama also.

New Jersey leans toward Obama while Delaware, Maryland and Washington DC all strongly favor Obama. Pennsylvania is now in play and a recent Susquehanna poll shows Romney leading by four percent, but other polls shows Obama with 50 percent and a lead in the state.

South: This region is Romney's strongest area as it has been for Republicans in recent presidential elections. West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas are all solidly “red” and Romney states. Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are the key swing states in the South. There are some heavily-skewed polls favoring Obama from Virginia but the RCP average favors Romney and Romney leads in the three more credible polls listed by RCP. The heavily skewed CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll is dismissed as an outlier. Clearly Romney is leading in Viriginia. North Carolina is a similar story but Romney leads or is tied in all the polls there and leads in the RCP average.

Florida is considered to the be big prize among Southern swing states. There are eight polls included in the RCP average and Mitt Romney is leading or tied in six of them as well as the RCP average itself. Romney has significantly gained in most polls in Florida over the last couple weeks. A Rasmussen survey of Florida released recently shows Romney leading by a 50 percent to 48 percent margin. Florida is upgraded to a likely Romney state.

Midwest: Indiana and Missouri are likely Republican for Romney while Michigan and Minnesota lean toward Obama. Obama's home state of Illinois is solid blue. Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota are all likely Romney states. The leaves this region's swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. The RCP average for Ohio has many skewed polls as well. The credible polls in Ohio ( ARG, Rasmussen and Gravis) would show show the race tied at 47.7. This is basically tied and the undecided voters will break it in favor Romney.

The recent polls for Michigan show it leaning toward Obama but the undecided voters will put Romney over 50 percent in Michigan.

The RCP average of Wisconsin includes several skewed polls and the latest poll from Rasmussen poll showing the race within the poll's margin of error. Remember, the undecided voters tip Wisconsin narrowly to Romney.

The latest poll of Iowa by Democrat-leaning PPP shows Romney leading 49 percent to 48 percent. Iowa will definitely go for Romney in November.

Southwest: Texas and Arizona are going solidly for Romney while the more competitive New Mexico leaning toward Obama.

Rocky Mountains: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah are all strongly for Romney. Nevada and Colorado are the swing states in the Rocky Mountains. While the RCP average of polls in Colorado includes several skewed polls, but Romney leads in most of the polls and in the RCP average itself after having gained ground in polls in Colorado the last couple weeks. The reputable polls in Nevada show the state to be moving in Obama's direction with several polls showing the president at 50 percent in Nevada. Nevada moves to Obama for this projection.

Pacific: California is solidly for Obama while Washington state is likely to be won by Obama, and Oregon is still leaning to Obama.

Alaska will be a solid Romney state while Hawaii will be strongly for Obama.

The result is Mitt Romney leaning the states above showing various shades of red or pink that are worth 311 electoral votes while Obama leads in the blue states worth 227 electoral votes. The states in blue and red in this map are blue where Obama has at least 50 percent and therefore is likely to win that state, while those states in red are where Romney has 50 percent in the credible polls and is likely to win those states. Pink and light blue states are the one where neither candidate is polling at 50 or higher in the credible polls.

The controversy or arguable part of this analysis might come down to the eight states showing in pink on the map. Obama has 227 electoral votes on the map including the electoral votes of light blue Oregon. Mitt Romney has 220 in red. Virginia and North Carolina both showing Romney leading in the RCP averages so clearly he's going to win those two states. Their 28 electoral votes puts Romney at 248 electoral votes. Karl Rove makes a strong and convincing case for Romney winning Ohio as does the latest Rasmussen poll. New Hampshire is very close in the RCP average and will be carried by Romney. Those 22 electoral votes put Romney at exactly 270. If one follows the conventional wisdom and some of the skewed polls too, and give Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa to Obama, that would put Obama up to 259 electoral votes. That leaves only Colorado where it's quite close and the undecided voters will push that state into Romney's column. That gives Romney 279 electoral votes.

That would result in 279 electoral votes for Mitt Romney and 259 electoral votes for Barack Obama. That would match the projection that Karl Rove published earlier today.

Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of the commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney. But many others in the media project very favorable maps and projections for Obama but those doing so fail to realize or accept how heavily-skewed polls distort any average or analysis that relies on them.

Let your voice be heard, take the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll, just a few quick questions, and the full QStarNews Poll with many interesting questions.

Featured in The Blaze, the Drudge Report and mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh Show and others, everyone is visiting UnSkewedPolls.com to check out the UnSkewedPolls.com average of unskewed polls. Check out the new Obama Humor pages at UnSkewedPolls.com.

Read the best of Dean's News and Commentaries here at DEAN2112.com.

Please also follow Dean on Twitter and Facebook.

Read more articles at RightNewsNow.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (147808)11/1/2012 10:17:36 PM
From: Ann Corrigan5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
Obama's Job Council Advisor ENDORSES Romney..


Business Owners Motivated to Sell... New Obamacare Tax Form Mandates Americans Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS... President's Job Council Advisor -- Endorses Romney?

Republican National Committee alleges voting machine troubles in Nevada, other swing states...

James Baker: 'Not Entirely Unlikely That We Might Have A Recount'...