Defense
Secretary Justifies Inaction in Benghazi Attack
US
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that the US military
commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and himself all
decided against any intervention to rescue those besieged because “we
lacked a clear picture of what was happening.”
Panetta
admitted that “while the drone surveillance did give us a real-time
view of events on the ground, there were still some unanswered
questions. First, we couldn't be sure how many attackers were
involved. Was it 50, 100? Without knowing this we couldn't be sure
how many reinforcements to send.”
“Second,
the pictures from the drone couldn't clearly establish the intent of
the attackers,” Panetta continued. “We had no way of knowing they
would actually kill the Ambassador. Maybe if those under attack had
simply surrendered they would have been taken alive. We couldn't risk
negating this potential option.”
“There
was always the chance that an attempt to rescue the Ambassador might
make things worse,” Panetta added. “As it now stands, only four
Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would've
been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at
least have no Libyan blood on our hands.”
The
Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were
desperately pleading for help. “It's to be expected that persons in
their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the
situation,” he said. “It's hard to appreciate the bigger picture
when you're in fear for your life. Those of us with broader
responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the
costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.”
Vice-President
Warns “GOP Will Cut Taxes by $500 Trillion”
Seeking
to shore up his Party's base, Vice-President Joe Biden warned that
“the GOP will cut taxes by $500 trillion if we let them win this
election.”
“All
the investments this Administration has made to try to ensure a more
equitable distribution of the nation's wealth are at risk,” Biden
said. “Do you think you can count on Republicans to continue to
expand the ranks of those on disability or food stamps? Do you think
they'll be as supportive of green energy?”
The
Vice-President insisted that “your government needs this $500
trillion to help advance the fundamental transformation of American
life that we all voted for in 2008. Don't let the forces of greed
succeed in withholding this from you. A vote for the Democratic Party
is a vote to put that money into your pocket.”
In
related news, the Vice-President denied that “stimulus funds”
that have benefited a company owned, in part, by his brother, was
improper or corrupt. “Since when do we criticize a man who helps
his brother?” Biden wanted to know. “I shouldn't be pilloried for
looking out for my own kin. It's the 'Cains' who refuse to be their
brother's keeper that we ought to be wary of.”
Biden's
brother James is a partner in Hill International—a company that
received a no-bid contract to build $1.5 billion in affordable
housing in Iraq. The contract is expected to net the partners over
$700 million in profits.
President's
Ad Puts the Moves on First-Time Voters
A new ad
from the Obama campaign aimed at first-time voters lurched into the
realm of bad taste by comparing voting to losing one's virginity.
“You
want your first time to be something you can always remember,” said
Lena Dunham, creator and star of the HBO series Girls. “Voting
for Romney would be like doing it with that Boy Scout your parents
are always complimenting and hoping you will go out with. Voting for
Obama would be like doing it with the boy they're trying to keep you
from seeing. Is there any question about who you really want to be
your first?”
Dunham
suggested that “Romney is like an 'A student,' too straight-laced'
to be much fun. Obama is mysterious and alluring. He may not be
paying much attention in class, but he hangs out with the cool kids
getting high and cracking jokes. You know he knows how to do it
right.”
Obama
campaign spokesperson Stephanie Cutter defended the ad despite robust
criticism from what she characterized as “the boring opponents of
women's sexual freedom. We think the contrast is legitimate. For a
young woman, voting for Romney would be like voting for her father.
Voting for President Obama is like voting for adventure. Is there
really any doubt which appeals more to a teen-aged female?”
Skimpy
Benghazi Security a “Strategic Decision”
Emerging
evidence that both Ambassador Stephens and Secretary of State Clinton
had requested increased security in Benghazi prior to the September
11 attack pushes blame upstream to the White House. Presidential
Press Secretary Jay Carney made an effort to expound upon the
Administration's thinking.
“The
determination not to beef up security for our embassy and consulate
in Libya was a strategic decision,” Carney asserted. “I know that
in hindsight it looks bad, but there were cogent reasons for the
decision.”
“The
President felt that a heavy contingent of armed guards would send the
wrong message to our Muslim friends in Libya and around the world,”
Carney explained. “It would've been a way of saying 'we don't trust
you.' Building trust was and is a key goal of this Administration.”
Carney
contended that “the focus on the Ambassador's request for more
security is one-sided. More security could've been interpreted as an
insult to the Libyan Government. It might've undermined the good will
we earned by helping overthrow Gaddafi.”
“The
important thing is that we not let this one tragedy undermine our
long-term strategy for recasting our country's relationship with
Islamic nations around the globe,” Carney urged. “Undoing the
mistakes of previous Administrations isn't easy and is not without
risk. We think Ambassador Stephens understood this and would be
appalled to see his death used to criticize the policies of a
President he heartily supported while he lived.”
Virginia
AG Declines to Prosecute Moran
Patrick
Moran, the son of Representative Jim Moran (D-Va), was caught on tape
advising an undercover reporter on ways to fake IDs so invalid votes
could be cast. Nevertheless, Virginia State Attorney General Ken
Cuccinelli (R) declined to press charges.
“Look,
this type of thing is pretty standard for how Democrats try to
manipulate elections in this state,” Cuccinelli observed. “If I
filed a case every time they try to commit vote fraud I wouldn't have
the resources to pursue more serious crimes.”
Cuccinelli
also argued that “trying to take this kind of offense through the
courts may not be the most effective way of dealing with it anyway.
The process is long and drawn out. The penalties are inadequate. It
may be a case of too little, too late.”
“Publicity
may be the best remedy,” Cuccinelli concluded. “Getting caught
right before election day may help voters understand their choices
better at a time when they can more effectively punish these crooks
by denying them the fruits of their fraudulent schemes.”
Lavish
Entertainment at White House Called “Unavoidable”
Reports
that the cost of entertainment at the White House have soared during
President Obama's term were called “unavoidable” by First Lady
Michelle Obama.
“Barack
is no ordinary president,” Michelle contended. “He is a Nobel
Prize winner. He is tremendously popular all over the world. Polls
show that if everyone in the world could vote for the President of
the United States he'd win with over 70% of the votes. So, naturally,
it's going to cost more.”
The “rock
star” status enjoyed by President Obama “boosts both the
frequency and expense necessary to entertain visitors at the White
House,” Michelle argued. “There's just so many more people who
want to be with Barack than wanted to be with Bush or Clinton. On top
of this, people expect an urbane and sophisticated experience. We're
not hosting the kind of hillbilly or cowboy clientele that dominated
previous administrations.”
The
highest cost event during the Obama Administration was a state dinner
for the President of Mexico at a price of around $4700 per attendee.
In comparison, the highest cost event during the Clinton
Administration cost around $400 per attendee.
In related
news, the First Lady advised supporters to “vote early because you
may find your toilet overflowing on election day.”
Obama's
Trouble with Math a Plus, Axelrod Says
President
Obama's admission to talk show host Jay Leno that “my math
expertise tops out at the 7th grade level” isn't a
handicap as Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod sees it.
“Some
are going to jump to the conclusion that a person like Mitt Romney
with his financial experience in multimillion dollar business
investments would be a better person to manage the government in a
time of fiscal crisis,” Axelrod said. “But we don't agree.”
“We
think the vast majority of voters will identify with the President's
aversion to math,” Axelrod pointed out. “Most people find math to
be hard and distasteful. They are, in a sense, in sync with the
President. They understand his struggle to cope with the severely
complex issues of debt and taxes.”
“In
contrast, we think voters will see Romney as a member of an elite
minority that easily comprehends high finance and, as such, fails to
understand how the average person lives,” Axelrod conjectured.
“They won't vote for the nerd who's a math whiz. They'll vote for
the guy who's like them, the guy they can trust to be on their side.”
Poll
of Obama Voters Show Majority Hope for Change in Second Term
A recent
poll of people saying they will vote for Obama's reelection yielded
confusing implications.
Only 4%
said they wanted a second term to be like the first. Over 60% said
they hoped a second term would be “significantly different.” The
rest said they didn't know enough about the first term to decide.
“Nothing
seems to have gone right the past four years,” said one of the 60%.
“I still haven't got a job. I had to move back in with my parents.”
As for why he's still voting to reelect Obama, he said “I believe a
person learns from his mistakes. The President has made so many that
he must have learned a lot.”
In
contrast, a member of the 4% argued that “the President isn't
getting the credit he deserves. I got disability for my drug habit
and with the Social Security and food stamps I'm getting life is a
lot less stressful than it was under Bush. I'd say President Obama
has delivered on his promise to transform America.”
Former
President Clinton Calls Voters “Impatient”
As polls
continue to indicate a shift in favor of Romney, former President
Bill Clinton castigated voters for their impatience.
“Four
years isn't that much time,” Clinton complained. “In the 1930s
voters easily reelected President Roosevelt even though his policies
were even less effective in dealing with the economy than President
Obama's have been. Unemployment was twice as high as it is now.
Businesses everywhere were shuttered. People stood in soup lines in
every city. Stock prices were a fraction of what they are now. It
was, from every perspective a disaster. Yet, FDR was reelected by a
huge margin.”
Clinton
speculated that “changes in communications may account for the
difference. Back then the FCC could turn the screws on radio stations
that openly criticized the President. Today, anyone can pretty much
say anything they want about him.”
“Then
there's the Internet,” Clinton continued. “Anyone with a keyboard
and an opinion can quickly and inexpensively reach millions of
voters. There's no effective way to monitor and filter what voters
see or hear.”
While
admitting that he was “not optimistic that President Obama will be
able to withstand the onslaught of unscreened criticisms of his
policies,” Clinton said he hoped that “reforms can be put into
place that would give the government a firmer grip on these
unregulated avenues of communication before worse damage is done.”
Secretary
Rebuffs Welfare Critique
Revelations
that the federal government spends over $60,000 per year per poverty
household were labeled “misleading” by Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“Just
looking at this one number makes it appear like these poor families
are receiving middle class incomes from the federal government,”
Sebelius complained. “A more accurate figure would show that these
families are receiving only about a third of that amount. The other
$40,000 goes to cover the cost of administering the programs.”
While an
“overhead” administrative cost of double the amount of benefits
to the poor might seem a bit steep, Sebelius justified it as “a
jobs program for people trained as social workers. If government
doesn't employ graduates with degrees in sociology who will? Or do we
just let these talents go to waste?”
Sebelius
also compared the $60,000 per household cost with “the much larger
sums handed out to corporations under the 'stimulus' and 'green
energy' programs. A lot of those recipients simply squandered the
money they received on ill-conceived and inefficient products. At
least our handouts enabled families to put food on their tables.”
Opinion • More about 
Opinion • More about 
