David Sanger, "John Kerry, in a Final, Pointed Plea, Will Outline a Vision of Mideast Peace": Blind Man's Bluff

Tweet

In a myopic New York Times article entitled "John Kerry, in a Final, Pointed Plea, Will Outline a Vision of Mideast Peace," David Sanger writes of John Kerry's speech today, which is intended "to shape the outlines of a Middle East peace deal":

"The decision to go ahead with his speech in the waning days of the administration is characteristic of Mr. Kerry, a serial negotiator who over the past four years traveled the world on three major missions: an Israeli-Palestinian accord, the Iranian nuclear accord, and a cease-fire and political accord for Syria. He will leave office on Jan. 20 having achieved the nuclear deal, but having tried and failed on the other two."

Kerry's nuclear deal with Iran was an achievement? Oh really. As reported by Jenna Lifhits in a December 25, 2016 Weekly Standard article entitled "U.N. Agency Publishes Secret Iran Deal Docs On Exemptions Obama Admin Dismissed":

"Iran was given secret exemptions allowing the country to exceed restrictions set out by the landmark nuclear deal inked last year, some of which were made public this week by the United Nations nuclear watchdog and others that are likely still being withheld, according to diplomatic sources and a top nuclear expert who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Friday posted documents revealing that Iran had been given exemptions in January that permit the country to stockpile uranium in excess of the 300 kilogram limit set by the nuclear deal, experts said. The agreements had been kept secret for almost a year, but recent reports indicated that the Trump administration intended to make them public."

In fact Kerry's unsigned Swiss cheese arrangement with Iran, negotiated in Geneva and shot through with holes, was anything but an achievement.

Sanger goes on to say concerning last week's Security Council resolution denouncing Israeli West Bank settlements:

"'We did not discuss the substance of the resolution at any time with the United States,' Gerard van Bohemen, New Zealand’s ambassador to the United Nations, said later, disputing Mr. Netanyahu’s account that the vote was orchestrated in Washington. 'We did not know how the United States would vote.'

The surprise was palpable. Román Oyarzun Marchesi of Spain, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council, asked for a show of hands in support of the resolution: 14 hands went up. He asked for a show of hands against: zero hands went up. A gasp was heard in the Council chamber. It meant that the United States, which can unilaterally veto a resolution as a permanent member of the Security Council, had not done so."

The surprise was "palpable"? Yeah, right. As reported today in a Times of Israel article entitled "Israel: US pressured Ukraine to support anti-settlement resolution":

"An Israeli official said Wednesday that highest-level US administration officials phoned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directly to pressure him to support the United Nations Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements.

'Either Obama or Biden spoke to Poroshenko about the matter,' a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel, elaborating on Israel’s claims that the US worked behind the scenes to bolster the resolution and to ensure that it was supported by all the other countries on the council.

According to one highly placed Israeli official who spoke to Tablet Magazine, it was Biden who personally intervened to ensure that Ukraine would support the resolution. 'Did Biden put pressure on the Ukrainians? Categorically yes,' said a source within the Israeli government. 'That Biden told them to do it is 1000% true,' he said."

Nauseating. Enough said.

David Brooks, "The Roosevelt Approach": A "Dear Hillary, Jeb, Marco and John" Letter? What About Joe?

Tweet

Declaring in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Roosevelt Approach" that "Sanders is uninhibited by the constraints of reality" and "Trump speaks from the id, not from any policy paper," David Brooks would have Hillary, Jeb, Marco and John adopt the "neighborliness" of FDR and Ike in combating these outliers. Brooks begins:

"You all find yourselves running against a whirlwind. Hillary, for you the whirlwind is Bernie Sanders. For the rest of you it’s Donald Trump.

Either way, you’re running against a candidate who generates passionate intensity. At some level those candidates’ followers must know that there’s something wildly impractical about the candidacy they are fervently supporting. Trump has no actual policies and Sanders has little chance of getting his passed.

And yet the supporters don’t care. Sanders and Trump make them feel known. Finally, somebody is saying what they feel. Finally, somebody is outraged by the things that outrage them. There’s a deep passion embedded in the Trump and Sanders phenomena, arousing energy, magical thinking and some suspension of disbelief.

And the rest of you are basically asking voters to snap out of it. All of you, but especially you, Hillary, are asking voters to calm down and be pragmatic: Consider electability!"

Stop right there, David! I'm no fan of Sanders or Trump, but you would have us believe that Hillary is running against a "whirlwind" in the form of Sanders? Rubbish! Hillary is running against herself: her greed (charging up to $300,000 to speak at public universities), her entitlement (jeopardizing the security of the US by installing a home email server), her lies ("I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."), and her hypocrisy ("Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," except when a woman claims "I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away.").

"Electability"? Hillary is not electable.

Brooks's conclusion:

"The candidate who has the audacity to change the emotional tone of this whole election will win the White House and have a shot at rebinding the civic fabric of this nation."

Indeed, Hillary needs to "change the emotional tone of this whole election" by dropping her bid for the presidency and allowing Joe Biden to run in her stead. She will be doing the United States, the Democratic Party and women a favor, and might even redeem herself in the eyes of many Americans. Will she withdraw from the race? Not a chance, unless the FBI recommends her indictment, but then it will be too late for her and for the nation.

David Brooks, "Donald Trump Isn’t Real": A Pity McMahon Didn't Shave Trump's Head

Tweet

David Brooks begins his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump Isn’t Real" by observing:

"Donald Trump was inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame in 2013. He’d been involved with professional wrestling for over a quarter century. At first his interest was on the business side, because so many of the events were held at his hotels. But then he began appearing in the ring as an actual character.

His greatest moment came in 2007 with the pay-per-view series called 'Battle of the Billionaires,' when he verbally went up against the WWE’s chief executive, Vince McMahon. The feud started when Trump interrupted McMahon on Fan Appreciation Night and upstaged him by raining thousands of dollars in cash down on the crowd in the arena. It continued with a verbal barrage and proxy match, and ended with a triumphant Trump shaving McMahon’s head in the middle of the ring."

A pity McMahon didn't shave Trump's head, revealing the secrets of the Donald's comb-over. Now that would have been entertainment!

Brooks proceeds to explain Trump's second-place finish in Iowa, "Trump was more spectacle than substance," and informs us, "We can expect similar Trump underperformance in state after state." Brooks's conclusion:

"Marco Rubio now has his moment. He is the only candidate who can plausibly unify the party. Desperate Cruz-hating Republicans will turn their faces to him."

From your lips to God's ears, David.

But once again, Brooks leaves Hillary out of the equation. How does someone facing possible indictment garner the votes of almost 50 percent of Iowa's Democrats?

Is Hillary's candidacy just as obscene as that of Trump? You bet!

Please, Joe, it's time to throw your hat into the ring.

Gail Collins, "An Iowa To-Do List": Hillary R. Clinton Will You Please Go Now!

Tweet

Marvin K. Mooney Hillary R. Clinton will you please go now!

Go to the homepage of The Washington Post where the lead story is still  "The State Department: Hillary Clinton’s email correspondence contained ‘top secret’ material," which followed on the heels of last night's bombshell revelation by the US State Department that additional top secret mails were found on Hillary's home server, including email correspondence with Obama. Obama has claimed that he didn't know that Hillary was using a private server and that the home server didn't pose a national security threat. Yeah, right.

Now go to the homepage of The New York Times: Currently not a mention of the story. "All the News Fit to Print," or, "What You Don't Know About Hillary Can't Hurt Her"? And so, perhaps you will be less than surprised to learn that Gail Collins, in her latest Times op-ed entitled "An Iowa To-Do List," also makes no mention of Hillary's email scandal, which is spiraling out of control. Instead, Collins lambastes the Republican presidential candidates and begins her opinion piece by observing:

"Iowa Republicans have a lot of choices on Monday, none of whom bear any resemblance to the second coming of Abraham Lincoln.

They’re not going to pick a paragon. But maybe they could at least get rid of somebody awful. Ted Cruz? Please, Iowa, if you could do anything to knock Ted Cruz out of the race, the country would be grateful. I know he has supporters. But the intensity of loathing among the rest of the population is very strong."

And America's "intensity of loathing" of Hillary? Long before yesterday's State Department disclosure, a Quinnipiac poll determined that the first words that come to mind when thinking of Hillary Clinton are "liar" and "dishonest." That sounds a bit like "loathing" to me."

Collins then calls for Iowa to eliminate Marco Rubio from the race, owing to his flip-flops on immigration:

"Cruz spent most of this week’s debate sniping at Marco Rubio — and Iowa, if you could get rid of both these guys, it’d be appreciated. I know that’s a lot to ask."

Mention by Collins of Hillary's flip-flops on the Iraq War, same sex marriage, free trade, gun control and immigration? None. I suppose this is because Hillary is granted space to allow her positions to "evolve."

Collins's conclusion:

"The truth, of course, is that someone awful will win, and nobody will go away. There’s still hope. And New Hampshire! Equally cold, but only 10 counties."

"Someone awful will win"? If only Hillary, The New York Times and Gail Collins could come to terms with the fact that Hillary, nearing indictment, must drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination before doing additional damage to her party and to the United States.

And yes, Joe, it's time to toss your hat in the ring, before it's too late.

Gail Collins, "Palin, Trump, Cruz and Corn": The Blame Game

Tweet

Noting Sarah Palin's endorsement on Tuesday of Donald Trump in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Palin, Trump, Cruz and Corn," Gail Collins further observes:

"The next day, Palin spoke at another Trump rally, where she appeared to blame Barack Obama’s veterans policy for her son’s domestic violence arrest this week. Republicans seem currently O.K. with blaming the president for anything, including sunspots."

An endorsement from Sarah Palin? It almost sounds like an oxymoron. (No, Sarah, I'm not calling you a nasty name.)

But more to the point, how does Collins make mention of Palin blaming Obama for her son's arrest without noting how the Hillary Clinton campaign is blaming everyone under the sun for the top-secret material recently discovered in her home server? Hillary's campaign spokesperson Brian Fallon said of this latest revelation:

"This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received. It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign."

Yup, it's just one big conspiracy. Now if only Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III was a Republican . . .

Hey, Joe, it's time to reconsider tossing your hat in the ring.

Gail, Collins, "Hillary and Bernie, Punching": Hillary Is "Uber-Qualified"?

Tweet

Labeling Hillary Clinton, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary and Bernie, Punching," "[t]he uber-qualified woman who believes she knows how to make the real world better," Gail Collins would have us know:

"Hillary is the former first lady who survived her husband’s impeachment, became a senator, then lost a presidential bid and then became secretary of state. We expect more in the way of can-do and less in the way of elevated campaign tactics from her."

Uber-qualified? Yes, she is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state, but what were her achievements? As David A. Graham wrote in an Atlantic article entitled "Is It Unfair to Ask About Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments?":

"The Clinton campaign hasn’t solved the problem of finding a way to communicate just what it is that Clinton has accomplished—particularly during her most recent role as secretary of state, but also in the earlier stages of her career.

The folks Politico canvassed had no shortage of answers, but some are rather thin. Bill Burton, a former Obama aide, cited her 'women’s rights are human rights speech,' given 20 years ago; 'her role in killing Osama bin Laden' (a nebulous answer, though it’s true she counseled in favor of the raid); and an even vaguer 'management of the State Department.'

The multiplicity of answers may reveal the trouble: No one or two accomplishments rise to the top. (The most commonly cited answer is marshaling sanctions against Iran, an essential prerequisite for the nuclear deal that followed, and for which John Kerry has claimed most credit.) Clinton herself has struggled with the question."

Hillary's involvement in cobbling together Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran? More and more, this is becoming a dubious distinction. On the other hand, although Hillary may have trouble identifying her achievements, her disasters, which go unmentioned by Collins, are bountiful:

• Targeting the victims of Bills sexual "antics" (calling Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic looney toon").
• Informing three of the families who lost loved-ones in Benghazi, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son," after telling the Egyptian prime minister, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film."
• Accepting donations to the Clinton Foundation from Muslim countries guilty of abominations against women and from banks guilty of conspiring to undertake currency manipulation.
• Maintaining a personal server for her email correspondence while secretary state, now the focus of a widening criminal investigation by the FBI.
• Engaging in sleazy cattle futures trading, by which she turned a $1,000 investment into almost $100,000 after 10 months. 

Clinton is "uber-qualified"? I don't think so. There is a reason why, given the paucity of Democratic contenders for the presidency, Bernie Sanders is rising in the polls. Depending upon the determinations of the FBI, Joe Biden, who is now questioning Hillary's "authenticity," might yet throw his hat in the ring.

Shame on you, Gail.

Gail Collins, "Hillary and Benghazi": An American Tragedy

Tweet

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary and Benghazi," Gail Collins writes of the proceedings of the House Select Committee on Benghazi and Hillary's imminent testimony before that body:

"The first step on the road to national sanity is to acknowledge that our leaders all want to keep the people safe. There is absolutely no reason to worry on that point."

Sorry, Gail, but I don't believe that. Not when President Obama can run off to play golf just minutes after expressing his grief over the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Not when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can promise Patricia Smith, mother of slain Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, a full accounting of the September 11, 2012 attack, and then just ignore Ms. Smith. You see, politics on both sides of the aisle is awash in narcissism, and most politicians don't give a damn about anyone except themselves.

Gail Collins continues her op-ed by observing:

"How do you know if politicians are transcending their parties when they’re investigating these painful and sensitive matters? Well, do they seem interested in important but unsexy issues like the State Department security chain of command?"

"Chain of command"? What are you intimating, Gail? That Hillary was too high up at the State Department to bear personal responsibility for the disaster? Well, I don't give a flying f*ck (pardon my French) about chains of command. A disaster of this magnitude occurs, and the head of the State Department should take personal responsibility . . . and not run for president. But Hillary, being Hillary, comes first.

What exactly did Hillary know prior to the disaster? Perhaps we will never know, owing to Hillary's erasure of her emails. (Let's see what the FBI determines regarding her use of a private server and the erasure of her emails, notwithstanding Obama's attempt to meddle with the investigation.) Collins says of Hillary's attempt to wipe clean her server:

"I believe I speak for many when I say that if email had been around during the Nixon administration, we would have seen erasures the size of Mount Whitney."

Nixon would have behaved worse than Hillary? I find that less than reassuring.

Which brings me to Biden's decision not to run against Hillary for the Democratic nomination. We still need to hear from the FBI, but as of now, Hillary appears to have the nomination in her pantsuit pocket. Now we must wait and see if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, thus heralding a hurricane of narcissism which might never wind down.

David Brooks, "The Biden Formation Story": Honesty Matters

Tweet

Despite what David Brooks wrote of Biden in August ("He’s a wonderful man and a great public servant, but he should not run for president this year, for the sake of his long-term reputation"), he now thinks Joe should toss his hat into the ring. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Biden Formation Story," Brooks declares:

"Candidates like John F. Kennedy and John McCain were formed by war. Candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were formed by their rise from broken homes and their dedication to lift others and heal divisions. Without a clear formation story, a candidate is just a hodgepodge of positions and logos.

Democrats this year are looking for a formation story that proves commitment. This is a party that is moving boldly leftward. Its voters want to know their candidate has the inner drive to push through structural changes, not just half measures."

Brooks argues that in his recent interview on "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert," Biden provided a "formation story" based upon the loss of family members. Brooks goes on to say:

"Out of that loss comes a great empathy, a connection to those who are suffering in this economy and this world. Out of that loss comes a hypercharged sense of mission. Out of that loss comes a liberation from the fear of failure that dogs most politicians, and causes them to dodge, prevaricate and spin."

Heck, I don't know much about "formation stories," but I would like to believe that I have learned a few things about honesty over the course of my time on this planet. Biden projects honesty and openness that go sorely lacking in Hillary.

As I stated earlier this month, go for it, Joe. The stars are properly aligned, and although there can be no promises, stranger things have happened.

Frank Bruni, "The Joe Biden Delusion": Honesty No Longer Matters

Tweet

Yesterday, I had a discussion with a family member, who told me that she would be pleased if Hillary became the next president. "She's smart," she told me. "Yes," I agreed, "but she's also dishonest and unscrupulous." The family member, however, was ready with a rejoinder: "The emails were confidential, not top secret." Was I surprised by her response? Not in the least. You see, honesty as it relates to the Clintons ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"), doesn't resonate with or matter to many voters.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Joe Biden Delusion," Frank Bruni tells us that he hopes Joe Biden will not challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination because . . . he's too honest and unconstrained:

"Where others say too little, he says too much. Where others depend on extravagantly compensated swamis to contrive their authenticity and coax them toward it, Biden needs help tamping down his irrepressible self.

. . . .

He rolls his eyes. He reaches out with his hands. He talks and talks, in sentences that sometimes go too far, with words that haven’t been weighed as carefully as they could be. The route from his brain to his lips is direct and swift. None of the usual traffic cones there.

Sometimes this is enervating. Mostly it’s endearing. For better or worse, it’s not the means to a promotion, not for this remarkable man at this remarkable time."

And if more surprises surface from Hillary's server? Can a $2.5 billion campaign deodorize the overpowering stench wafting from a river of raw sewage? Maybe, but it remains to be seen.

Go for it, Joe. If Trump takes the Republican nomination, this time you might just get lucky.

Maureen Dowd, "Bush and Clinton Dynasties Hit Trump Bump": Has Dowd Been Hit by Writer's Block?

Tweet

Re Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bush and Clinton Dynasties Hit Trump Bump," don't even bother, unless you've run out of melatonin. Trump has paved the way for Biden? Given that we already have the narcissists, it's time to send in the clowns!

Maureen Dowd, "Joe Biden in 2016: What Would Beau Do?": Empress Hillary Has No Clothes

Tweet

Empress Hillary has no clothes. You don't believe me? Read Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Joe Biden in 2016: What Would Beau Do?" Savaging the former secretary of state, Dowd declares:

"A PATTERN of cutting corners, a patina of entitlement and inevitability, has led to this.

Destroying digital messages and thwarting official investigations while acting all innocent about wiping out sensitive material.

Avoiding reporters after giving disingenuous explanations at uncomfortable news conferences. Claiming egregious transgressions are a private matter and faux controversy while sending out high-power lawyers and spin doctors to deflect and minimize.

. . . .

[I]n the case of Hillary, problems of style and substance are starting to scuff her sheen of inevitability."

Who's preparing to step up and take her on in the Democratic primaries? Dowd points to Joe Biden. And although Biden is, on occasion, a clown - you will of course recall Biden's recommendation to a mother to buy a shotgun for protection - his antics do not rival those of Donald Trump.

Be it at Beau's behest or otherwise, Joe, welcome to the race.

My advice to Hillary: Get dressed, get divorced (What's all this talk about the Energizer, who brings cookies to the Secret Service detail?) and get yourself a new life.

Paul Krugman, "Health Care Horror Hooey": As California Goes, So Goes the Nation?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? My goodness, Krugman really hit the mark with that prediction. Well, Krugman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Health Care Horror Hooey" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/krugman-health-care-horror-hooey.html?ref=opinion), would now have us believe that Obamacare is in fact succeeding by observing its "success" in . . . California:

"I’m not sure whether conservatives realize yet that their Plan A on health reform — wait for Obamacare’s inevitable collapse, and reap the political rewards — isn’t working. But it isn’t. Enrollments have recovered strongly from the law’s disastrous start-up; in California, which had a working website from the beginning, enrollment has already exceeded first-year projections. The mix of people signed up so far is older than planners had hoped, but not enough so to cause big premium hikes, let alone the often-predicted 'death spiral.'"

Of course, you remember the old saying, "As California goes, so goes the nation." Wait a second! California? I thought the saying referred to Maine. Well, during various times in American history, "Maine" was replaced by Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Ohio in this adage, but never by California.

But let's forget California for the moment. Vice President Biden last week informed us that Obamacare was off to "a hell of a start" and further explained, "We may not get to seven million [enrollees], we may get to five or six." Heck, that's just a 15%-30% shortfall, depending how the cookie ultimately crumbles.

Strange as it may seem, I am not a conservative, and I believe in universal health care, but Krugman might still want to consider Kathleen Parker's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The poetry of bad news around Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-poetry-of-bad-news-around-obamacare/2014/02/14/15aa9b3c-95c5-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html?hpid=z4). Parker cogently concludes:

"In the meantime, what the economy needs least is a federal program that prompts lower- and middle-class workers to drop out of the workforce. This is in addition to the many who are losing their jobs involuntarily or having their hours cut by their employers who want to avoid the mandate to buy insurance or the fine for failing to do so.

Again, this is a simple matter of incentives and survival, which President Obama seems to have recognized in postponing the mandate for midsize businesses until 2016. Or perhaps he is trying to head off another health-care controversy before the midterm elections? Shucks, do you suppose?

Add to the above the CBO’s report in May that 31 million people will not have health insurance in 2023.

Any one of these things would be bad news. Combined, they boggle the well-ordered mind. If I may invoke our Fairy Godmother again, Pelosi was the most honest of all when she warned us that 'We have to pass the bill [Obamacare] so that you can find out what is in it.'

Today, knowing what we know, we are left with what we used to call a million-dollar question, though it is much more expensive now: How does one defend spending $1.2  trillion for a health-care overhaul that disincentivizes people to work and that leaves us with 31 million uninsured?

One writes poetry."

Delays in implementing Obamacare? As reported by Fox News (I know, Obama doesn't like Fox) (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/tracking-obamacare-as-enrollment-deadline-nears-law-endures-28-delays-and/):

"Since its inception, provisions of the law have been delayed a total of 28 times; the average delay was six months and three weeks. Put another way, the cumulative delays add up to an astonishing 15 years and three months.

The administration has been announcing changes to the law at a fairly steady clip.

The White House's latest delay was rolled out on Feb. 10, and allowed companies with between 50 and 99 workers to skirt the mandate to provide health care until 2016.

Of the White House's 28 delays to the law, 13 have been set to last at least one year. Eight revisions last a month or more. The shortest delay, announced in December 2013, gave Americans one extra day to purchase coverage that would begin on Jan. 1, 2014 through HealthCare.gov. Ultimately, that delay was extended to a vague 'more time.'"

Health care horror hooey? Yeah, right. Obamacare is showing all the promise of Krugman's beloved OWS, which is perhaps why the Obama administration is seeking a new legacy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/bill-keller-crime-and-punishment-and.html).

Maureen Dowd, "Lost Art of Loyalty": Biden Could Yet Have the Last Laugh

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

There are almost three and a half years left to Obama's disastrous second term, and Americans are still discovering that there are consequences to electing a community organizer with no managerial experience as president. On Saturday, however, this did not prevent New York's Chuck Schumer from endorsing Hillary, a woman with absolutely no achievements - other than frequent flyer miles - as Obama's successor: "Run, Hillary, Run. If you run, you’ll win, and we’ll all win" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/02/chuck-schumer-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-if-you-run-youll-win/?hpid=z3).

Me? I can't wait to be a winner, but "Run, Hillary, run"? How about "Waddle, Hillary, waddle"?

Benghazi? What does it matter? Does anyone, other than the family members of the four American victims, still remember this fiasco? But I suppose we need to take into account the larger picture - America has experienced its first African American president, and now it's time for its first woman commander-in-chief. Get with the agenda! You see, in our Brave New World, it's skin color and gender that matter, not competence - or loyalty. And if speculation that Hillary is also a lesbian were to prove correct (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/hillary-clinton-lesbian-president-_n_3957349.html), we could kill two birds with one stone! What a wonderful world this would be! A regular love fest!

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lost Art of Loyalty" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/dowd-lost-art-of-loyalty.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Maureen Dowd notes the unswerving loyalty demonstrated by Vice Presdient Joe Biden to his boss and the indifference with which it has been received by Obama and his confidants. Dowd writes:

"In a capital known for hogging credit and stealing turf, Joe Biden has provided his boss with a rare loyalty over the last five years. Even behind closed doors, the vice president tries to elevate the president. His friends stress that Biden is not a golden retriever, but a sled dog, pulling his weight, chipping in, doing whatever he can."

And what has Biden gained from this fidelity? Dowd continues:

"It’s fair to say that Joe Biden has not been given the respect he deserves in the White House. It’s the story of the ultimate team player who has not been treated that way himself.

The West Wing young bucks never fully appreciated the fact that if you have a president who turns up his nose at working with Congress, it’s nice to have a vice president who enjoys being a pol, who can pick up the phone and persuade Arlen Specter, at the cost of his political career, to help pass Obama’s stimulus.

Biden has bent over backward to put the president in a good light, even as the president and Obamaworld have bent over backward to treat Hillary like the rightful successor to Obama.

They say loyalty is its own reward, and, in the case of Biden, it will have to be."

Or stated otherwise, Biden has earned the contempt of the fast-talking snake oil salesmen with whom Obama has surrounded himself. Biden in 2016? Again, it's not part of the agenda.

But wait! As observed by Joe Bruni yesterday regarding Hillary's numbers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/opinion/bruni-hillary-in-2016-not-so-fast.html?_r=0):

"A poll released last week by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal charted the decline. It found that the percentage of Americans who view her favorably had dropped to 46 from 56. The percentage with unfavorable views had risen, less strikingly, to 33 from 29.

Here we go. The beginning of the end of her inevitability."

Oh, Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. In this age of entitlement, it's her turn.

But what happens afterwards when she is forced to wage an epic heavyweight battle against New Jersey's Big Gulp? It is still a long way down a bumpy road, rife with potholes and unexpected twists and turns.

Loyalty is its own reward? Although not destined to succeed Obama, Biden could yet have the last laugh.

Maureen Dowd, "Who Do You Trust?": Obama and Kerry's Rendition of "Laurel and Hardy"

"To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question."

- President Barack Obama, Address on Syria, September 10, 2013

Over the past two weeks, we've watched Barack Obama and John Kerry turn US foreign policy into a Laurel and Hardy routine. Fortunately for America, the West Wing had the good sense to keep Obama's "bumbling" (I'm being kind) Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, away from center stage in order to prevent this farce from becoming a Three Stooges episode. Joe Biden, who fancies himself a presidential candidate in 2016, was smart enough to keep his mouth shut so that this would not become a Marx Brothers revival.

Yesterday, Obama bombed, and the critics are unanimous in labeling Obama's speech regarding Assad's use of sarin gas against civilians a flop. But heck, Obama is only a community organizer trying to play the role of Commander in Chief. Cut the man some slack!

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who Do You Trust?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd doesn't cut Obama any slack at all.  Dowd writes:

"Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about 'a red line for us' — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

. . . .

The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over 'every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community' and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an 'unbelievably small' effort.

. . . .

Even as Democrats tiptoed away from the red line, eager to kick the can of Sarin down the road, their own harsh rhetoric haunted them. Kerry compared Assad to Hitler last week, and Harry Reid evoked 'Nazi death camps' on the Senate floor Monday."

But you should never base your theater going choices on the opinion of only one reviewer. Let's have a look at what the Washington Post's middle-of-the-road Dana Milbank had to say in an opinion piece entitled "Obama’s Syria muddle" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-kerrys-not-so-clear-sailing-on-syria/2013/09/10/142fe5da-1a52-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?hpid=z3):

"At 9 p.m. Tuesday, President Obama, in his address to the nation, said that he had 'asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force.'

This contradicted what his secretary of state, John Kerry, had said in testimony to Congress just 11 hours earlier. 'We’re not asking Congress not to vote,' Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. 'I’m not asking [for] delay,' he added later.

Kerry can be forgiven for being at odds with the president. The president, in the space of his 16-minute address, was often at odds with himself. He spent the first 12 minutes arguing for the merits of striking Syria — and then delivered the news that he was putting military action on hold."

All of which is not to say that the performance by Obama and Kerry did not elicit laughter. As reported by CBS (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/10/syrian-foreign-minister-accepting-russias-proposal-pulls-the-rug-from-under-the-feet-of-american-aggression/):

"'Yesterday we held a round of very fruitful negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and he put forward an initiative regarding chemical weapons. Already in the evening we accepted Russia’s initiative,' Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said, according to Russia Today, adding that this move is to 'pull the rug from under the feet of American aggression.'"

Actually, Walid al-Muallem botched his line. He was meant to say that this move is intended to "pull the wool over the eyes of Washington," but accidents in the theater of the absurd do happen.

Bottom line: It's hard to imagine that this inept comedy routine is going to run for another three and a half years until a new comedian replaces Obama in the Oval Office.

This just in: Anthony Weiner has announced that he will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016! President Weiner? That should keep them rolling in the aisles of Congress . . .

David Brooks, "The A-Rod Problem": Will Obama Also Be Suspended Through the 2014 Season?

Hey, David, preoccupation with self is called narcissism, the plague of the 21st Century.

Writing about the suspension of Alex Rodriguez from baseball through the 2014 season, David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The A-Rod Problem" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/opinion/brooks-the-a-rod-problem.html?_r=0), describes . . . his own preoccupation with self when he first began writing his column a decade ago. Brooks tells us:

"So, especially in the first few months, I had a self-preoccupied question on my mind: How am I doing? There was no noncrazy-making answer to that question. I was always looking for some ultimate validation, which, of course, can never come. But, after a little while, I settled into a routine and my focus shifted from my own performance to the actual subjects I was writing about. This shift from performance to subject may not have made the columns any better, but it sure did improve my psychic equilibrium.

That period was a lesson in the perils of self-preoccupation."

Of course, no one is accusing Obama of taking performance enhancing drugs. If there was such a thing for leadership in presidents, I wish he would consider it.

Also, regarding performance enhancement, teleprompters have yet to be declared illegal.

But with the economy in shambles and a non-existent foreign policy (unless you want to call "leading from behind" a foreign policy), isn't it a pity that Obama can't be threatened with suspension during the 2014 season?

On the other hand, who would be pitching in his absence? Joe "Shotgun" Biden?

Maybe we're better off keeping Obama on the roster.

Gail Collins, "The Dread That Is Ted": The Tall Tale Told by Gail

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me."

- Dianne Feinstein

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Dread That Is Ted" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/opinion/collins-the-dread-that-is-ted.html?_r=0), Gail Collins takes Senator Ted Cruz to task for daring to lecture 79-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Judiciary Committee hearing this past week regarding the sale of assault rifles. Collins writes of Cruz:

"If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness, you are definitely not working on a recipe for cooperative achievement."

Ah, yes, let's blame freshman Senator Cruz for a lack of "cooperative achievement." In this vein, consider what Olympia Snowe, one of the most moderate Republicans in Washington, had to say when explaining her retirement from the US Senate, i.e. before Cruz arrived on the scene (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/):

"People are just stunned by the debilitating partisanship, polarization and the overall dysfunction of the institution and political paralysis as we come, you know, to the point of extreme when it comes to resolving the problems facing our country."

And what did Snowe, one of three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009, have to say about President Obama? Snowe told Jonathan Karl that she has not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

Yup, the US government is dysfunctional, but let's not blame Ted Cruz for that. There is someone else at whom Gail should be pointing her finger.

But I stray from the issue of gun control and a ban on assault rifles. I favor a ban on assault rifles; however, I also acknowledge that they are not the problem. Have a look at the data from the FBI on all murders from 2007 to 2011 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8). In a nutshell, handguns (what Feinstein used to carry around with her) are far more of a problem than assault rifles. For that matter, between 2007 and 2011 clubs and hammers killed more persons than "rifles" (not just assault rifles), and knives killed four times more people than rifles. In all but one year, shotguns killed more people than rifles.

Shotguns? Recall what Vice President Biden had to say about shotguns in a recent interview with Field & Stream magazine (see: http://washingtonexaminer.com/more-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/article/2522791):

"Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense," Biden said. "I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, 'Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.'

I said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

So just remember, should you accidentally kill the UPS man who arrived to deliver a package, or a Girl Scout who came to sell cookies, have your lawyer tell the court that none other than the Vice President of the United States told my client to "just fire the shotgun through the door."

On a more somber note, both Collins and Feinstein fail to understand that assault rifles are not the root of the problem. Rather, it is the violence inherent in American society, acknowledged by Feinstein, that is responsible for the rage and rampant killing.

Or as Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Maureen Dowd, "The Surreal World: Capitol Hill": Less Than a Few Good Men (and Women)

"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something."

- Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessep, "A Few Good Men"

"A Few Good Men" is one of my favorite movies, which comes to a climax when the villain, Colonel Jessep, responds to Lieutenant Kaffee's demand for the "truth" in a military court of justice. What's special about this flick? Although Jessep's snide, insolent, arrogant and domineering character is indeed "grotesque," I can't help empathizing with his deep-seated belief in "honor," "code" and "loyalty." Those of us who have served in combat units, when granted a couple of hours of precious sleep while on the line, have needed to believe in the probity of those other exhausted grimy persons beside them when resting their heads in the sand or mud.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Surreal World: Capitol Hill" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-surreal-world-capitol-hill.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd draws our attention to John Boehner's awkwardness during the ceremonial swearing-in for House members, compared with the Joe Biden's bonhomie at the Senate's swearing-in observance. Dowd next observes how it was Biden's flippant ease that allowed the vice president "to save the day on the fiscal cliff":

"Obama radiates contempt at Congress for not being a bunch of high-minded, effective people, and for expecting him to clean up its mess. He thinks reasonable people should see things his way in a reasonable amount of time, and gets impatient when ideology, ego, identity politics and pork-project whining hold up progress.

Biden is a realist. He understands lawmakers' limitations, motivations and needs. He leans right in and speaks -- and speaks and speaks -- their language. That's who he is. And he believes, as creaky and unwieldy as the system is, that it still has integrity."

Does Washington still have integrity? Congress will soon be approving Senator John Kerry, who referred to Syrian dictator and mass murderer Bashar al-Assad as "my dear friend," as Obama's next secretary of state.

Most likely, Congress will also be narrowly approving former Senator Chuck Hagel as Obama's new secretary of defense. Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, which was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 American soldiers, as a terrorist organization.

Kerry? Hagel? They leave me nauseous and cold inside.

The surreal world of Capitol Hill? Quite right. "Honor," "code" and "loyalty" have been replaced by "narcissism," "vanity" and "conceit."

"You can't handle the truth!" Indeed, and there's nothing I can do to change it.

New York Times Editorial, "No Shame": The Times Shamefully Ignores Obama's Benghazi Cover-Up

In an editorial entitled "No Shame" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html?_r=0),  The New York Times brazenly reprimands Republicans for seeking to cut spending on the protection of US overseas diplomatic facilties. The reality, however, is that no American embassy or consulate is designed to withstand a sustained assault involving mortar fire, gun trucks and RPGs.

A sustained assault involving mortar fire, gun trucks and RPGs? No mention in the Times editorial that this was the nature of the attacks, lasting five hours, against two US facilities in Benghazi. Of course, the Obama administration also sought to hide this fact for the better part of a month by alleging that the attacks involved "spontaneous demonstrations" in response to an inane Internet video.

As stated by the editorial:

"Clearly, there is much we don’t know about what happened in Benghazi or what changes could have saved the four Americans.

. . . .

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed a panel of outside experts to investigate."

"There is much we don't know about what happened in Benghazi"? Indeed, the Obama administration, which received real time reports concerning the true nature of the September 11 attacks (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE89201220121003), has sought to obfuscate the details of the deadly incident. During his debate with Paul Ryan, Vice President Biden did his part to perpetuate the cover-up by declaring:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why -- why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on (inaudible)?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

Yes, Biden is lying.

Hillary "has appointed a panel of outside experts to investigate"? Oh, really. Guess who is heading up this investigation? None other than Thomas Pickering, who co-authored a March 20, 2008 article in The New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112), which stated:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

Pickering's naivete, as evidenced by his belief in 2008 that Iran had halted its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, should preclude him from managing this sensitive inquiry (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/thomas-pickering-is-heading-benghazi.html).

Hillary's ongoing contribution to the cover-up? Note her interchange on October 12 with CNN's Jill Doherty (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/10/199009.htm):

DOHERTY: Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, in the debate – the Vice Presidential Debate last night, there was one thing that the Vice President said, which was, “That is what intelligence told us.” And there’s just one issue that seems so very basic that I’m finding it difficult to understand why it’s not clear, and that is whether or not there actually was a demonstration that night. Is there any clarity that you have at this moment about that?

And then also, could you tell us a little bit about what you were doing when that attack actually happened? I know Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official, was mentioning that she back here in Washington was monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time. Could you tell us what you were doing? Were you watching? Were you talking with the President? Any details about that, please.

HILLARY: Well, Jill, before I answer your question, I want to underscore what an invaluable partner Italy has been in our efforts to support a democratic Libya. [Blah, blah, blah.]

. . . .


With respect to your questions, Jill, I think that it is very important to recognize that we have an investigation going on. We have an Accountability Review Board that is just beginning its work. There is much we still don’t know. And I am the first to say that. But as someone who has been at the center of this tragedy from the beginning, I do know this: There is nobody in the Administration motivated by anything other than trying to understand what happened. And we are doing all we can to prevent it from ever happening again – anywhere. And of course, we are, as a government, doing what it takes to track down those who were responsible.

To this day – to this day, we do not have a complete picture. We do not have all the answers. No one in this Administration has ever claimed otherwise. Every one of us has made clear that we are providing the best information we have at that time. And that information continues to be updated. It also continues to be put into context and more deeply understood through the process we are engaged in. Ambassador Rice had the same information from the intelligence community as every other senior official did.

And that’s the very way that I’m answering your question today, because we can only tell you what we know based on our most current understanding of the attack and what led up to it. Obviously, we know more as time goes by and we will know even more than we did hours and days after the attack.

So that’s what an investigative process is designed to do: to try to sort through all of the information, some of it contradictory and conflicting. And I want us to keep in mind that four Americans were killed, four men who served our country. Dozens of Americans fought for their lives that night, and to honor them we all have to get to the bottom of every question and answer it to the best of our ability. And then we’ve got to be sure that we apply the lessons we learned to make sure that we protect everybody in harm’s way.

So I’m going to be, as I have been from the very beginning, cooperating fully with the investigations that are ongoing, because nobody wants to know more about what happened and why than I do. And I think I’ll leave it at that.

DOHERTY: Mrs. Secretary, if you could, the question was --

HILLARY: I know, but I’m going to leave it at that.

This is classic stonewalling (i.e. malarkey, moonshine, piffle, hokum, hogwash, claptrap, bunkum, tripe, twaddle, wind, flimflam - take your pick), which will surely be studied in international relations courses at leading universities for years to come.

Shame on Hillary.

Shame on The New York Times, whose blind partisanship knows no bounds.

Maureen Dowd, "An Irish Catholic Wake-Up": Sidestepping the Benghazi Cover-Up

This past Thursday, the Vice President of the United States told a bald-faced lie to the American electorate during his debate with Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. Note the following interchange concerning the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi between moderator Martha Raddatz and Joe Biden:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

Ah, yes, the intelligence community is to blame. Vice President Biden, however, knows that this is "not accurate." The intelligence community never changed its assessment. The White House was almost immediately informed of the exact nature of the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate. As reported by Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE89201220121003):

"Within hours of last month's attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama's administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said."

A team player, Biden was willing to do his part to perpetuate the myth that the White House had not received accurate information at the expense of the US intelligence community, some of whom place their lives on the line every day to protect American lives and freedom. Biden would have us believe that this "inaccurate" information from the intelligence community was what caused US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and White House spokesman Jay Carney to label the attack on the Benghazi consulate as "spontaneous."

It should come as no surprise that The New York Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, is also doing its utmost to avoid mention of the Benghazi cover-up.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "An Irish Catholic Wake-Up" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/an-irish-catholic-wake-up.html?pagewanted=all), Maureen Dowd, who knows almost nothing about foreign affairs, derides Paul Ryan and "the bankrupt neocon philosophy of going to war to prevent war." The Queen of Snark writes:

"Ronald Reagan knew how to bluster for peace. Neocons do not. When they run the show, threatening a war is followed by going to war and that is followed by bollixing up the war and that is followed by our troops’ dying at war and money-pit nation-building to end the war, and that is followed by economic disaster for America."

Well, I'm not a neocon. In fact, according to a PBS political party quiz (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2012/quiz/), my answers place me closest to being a "moderate Democrat." In any event, whatever I may or may not be, I have consistently opposed Obama's inane escalation of the ground war in Afghanistan, which has resulted in the tragic deaths of more than 2,000 American soldiers and which is costing the US $6 billion per month. Sorry, Maureen, but this is Obama's mess.

Near the end of her opinion piece, Dowd finally gets around to mentioning the Benghazi debacle:

"Biden’s weakest moment was on Libya, where he stumbled as he claimed that the White House didn’t know about requests for more security for diplomats there. It is likely true that such an appeal never made it through the Foggy Bottom bureaucracy to the West Wing. But the vice president should have been prepared to answer questions about a blunder that has scuffed the administration’s national security luster.

. . . .

The president’s advisers now realize they will need a much better explanation by Tuesday, when Romney is certain to press Obama on the issue."

Of course, Dowd is cleverly attempting to sidestep Biden's fib concerning when the Obama administration first became aware of the true nature of the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate and Obama's month-long effort to flummox the American electorate.

Shame on Biden for defaming the US intelligence community.

Shame on Dowd for her willingness to dodge the issue.

Gail Collins, "Veeps Go Yeep! Nation Nods.": What About Benghazi?

Nothing happened at the Biden-Ryan debate? Well, that depends if you want to ignore the Obama administration's ongoing cover-up of the Benghazi disaster.

In her latest New York Times op-ed enitled "Veeps Go Yeep! Nation Nods." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/opinion/collins-veeps-go-yeep-nation-nods.html), Gail Collins declares:

"I think I speak for all of America when I say nothing that interesting happened with the vice-presidential candidates."

Speak for yourself, Gail. Note what Biden had to say about Benghazi:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

Once again, Vice President Biden knows that this is "not accurate." The intelligence community never changed its assessment. The White House was almost immediately informed of the exact nature of the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate. As reported by Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE89201220121003):

"Within hours of last month's attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama's administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said."

A team player, Biden was willing to do his part to perpetuate the myth that the White House had not received accurate information.

Collins, also a team player, systematically ignores Benghazi.

Who "won" the Biden-Ryan debate? I don't know. Moving ahead, however, Biden may have lost the 2012 election for the Democrats by embellishing the Benghazi cover-up and further painting the Obama administration into a corner.