Does This Ad Work?
— Ace

When I saw Biden's laugh, I had the idea of adding a laugh track and rimshots.

I wondered, though, if that would send the wrong message: Would it seem like the laugh track was reinforcing Biden's intended message that what Ryan was saying was ridiculous?

Well, someone did do just this, so we can see if my worry was well-founded, of if the maker managed to make it clear that Biden, not Ryan, is the clown here. Did the focus on Biden make it clear that he's the goof?

Actually, speaking of: What if you constructed a mock debate stage and showed a clown -- a real clown -- over in the left wing (stage left, behind the curtain) making balloon animals and honking a horn? And intercut that to suggest that "The Intellect of the Democratic Party" was just mesmerized by this clown for the whole debate?

Anyway, here's Biden, with laugh track. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 AM | Comments (139)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Potentially Painful Poll for Ohio Coming Today
— CAC

Developing...

Posted by: CAC at 08:24 AM | Comments (404)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

College Football Thread
— Dave in Texas

Saturday!

Alabama (1) vs. Missouri, 3:30pm
South Carolina (3) COCKS vs. LSU (9), 8pm
Florida (4) and Vanderbilt, 6pm
West Virginia (5) vs. Texas Tech, 3:30pm
Kansas St. (6) and Iowa St., noon
Notre Dame (7) vs. Standford (17), 3:30pm
Ohio State ( vs. Indiana, 8pm
Oregon St. (10) and BYU, 3:30pm

and

OU (13) vs. Texas (15) at noon

Good luck, Sooners more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:35 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Saturday Morning Open Thread
— andy

A special message from Chief Deputy Art Mullen.

Over the last few months of arguing about politics on Facebook and Twitter with various leftists stooges and numbskulls, I have found it necessary from time to time to ban some of them from watching JUSTIFIED. I cannot have a bunch of stupid leftist Democrats out there watching our show and cheering for the thieves, as leftists always do. So leftists, when I ban you from watching Justified and you try to tune in when Season 4 starts in January 2013, this is what you will see on your screen:

(via Facebook) more...

Posted by: andy at 03:35 AM | Comments (452)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— CDR M

There were some very troubling moments in the VP debate last night pertaining to the military and is captured very well in this article: A Civil-Military Headache From The VP Debate That Could Linger.

Where things really got dicey was when, in response to the charge that the Afghan surge withdrawal timeline, Biden tried to hide behind the military. Raddatz pressed him on the complaints she is hearing -- we all are hearing -- but Biden dismissed it as nonsense. He pretended that the withdrawal timeline was proposed by the Joint Chiefs rather than imposed by the White House.

That is not true. The Joint Chiefs and the Afghan combatant commander did go along with the White House order, but they proposed a slower, conditions-based timeline and they certainly did not want it announced at the outset.

This is a very dangerous game to play. Because of the strong support for the principle of civilian control among our armed forces, civilians can and do make the military salute and obey orders the military think are inadvisable. Canny commanders-in-chief try to minimize those instances, working with the military to cajole and bargain them into supporting positions that they initially opposed (this is exactly what Bush did with the Iraq surge). But when the White House bigfoots a decision, as the Obama White House did multiple times on Afghanistan, it is the president who must shoulder the political load for the decision.

Biden knows, or should know, that from the military's perspective President Obama imposed an under-resourced Afghan surge, undercut it by announcing the timeline, and interrupted the last fighting season by accelerating the withdrawal. That was his prerogative as commander-in-chief. But if that policy is criticized, as Ryan did in the debate, the Obama White House must be honest about how it came about. Biden cannot pretend that this was the military's plan all along.

Biden saying that the military asked for $1T in cuts, surge withdrawal, etc almost sounds like a rapist blaming the victim saying they asked for it.

It's your plan Democrats. Own it. If you are gonna take the credit for bin Laden, then man up and take the credit for your Afghanistan surge debacle, Iraq SOFA failure and defense cuts. It is little wonder that military support is so little for Obama/Biden. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:38 PM | Comments (745)
Post contains 752 words, total size 6 kb.

Iowahawk: Biden Did What He Had To Do Last Night: Audition For a 5 PM Slot on MSNBC In January.
— Ace

Meanwhile, Giuliani has some fun, too: Libya is a teaching moment for Obama. Because he'll be teaching classes next year.

Posted by: Ace at 01:28 PM | Comments (693)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

USS Cole, Part II
— andy

It's not a double-post, it's an homage.

Video of USS Cole Commander Kirk Lippold speaking about leaving Yemen with honor appears below the fold. more...

Posted by: andy at 12:35 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Twelve Years Ago Today: The Bombing of the USS Cole
— Dave in Texas

In memory of the 17 US Navy sailors who lost their lives in an attack by Al Qaeda on the USS Cole. The is the Cole Memorial, at Norfolk Naval Station.

We let our guard down or show weakness, this is what they do. Just like last month. Only this time they were thoughtful enough to tell us they were coming.

39 other sailors were injured in the attack. Below the fold, the names of those who perished.

via Viv Lee

Also from the sidebar, Command Sergeant Major Basil Plumley, US Army, passes at 92. A combat veteran of three wars, remembered forever in Ia Drang glory. May he rest.

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:06 AM | Comments (125)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Intercepted Phone Call That The Administration Relied Upon To Claim A "Protest" At Benghazi ALSO CONTAINED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM AL QAEDA THAT THEY WOULD PROCEED WITH THE PLANNED ATTACK
— Ace

Bumped. Open thread below.

Sorry if that headline is confusing. Let me unpack it:

The Administration claims it did have some basis for claiming this attack was somehow related to a "protest" about the YouTube video.

There was no protest. But they claimed "intelligence" told them there might be some link to a protest. So they're claiming they might have been wrong, but they weren't deliberately wrong-- also known as lying. In error, but not in deceit, they claim.

Well, we now know the contents of that single strand of intelligence suggesting there might be a protest (which was incorrect intelligence).

That strand of intelligence was a message from an Al Qaeda group saying they would go ahead with their planned attack, given there were protests erupting in other parts of the world.

Thus, the very evidence they claim exonerates them from the charge of deliberately misleading the public in fact damns them -- because this single strand of intelligence came from Al Qaeda, announcing it would go ahead with the attack!

But they never told us that part, did they?

And now, caught out lying to the public about this, they claim this intelligence vindicates them -- but it actually proves that from the first moments of intelligence collection they knew Al Qaeda was behind it, and even if there was a protest (which there wasn't) that was simply a matter of providing cover for the planned attack.

This is actually ten day old news-- Eli Lake reported it October 1.

But I, for one, never appreciated this. I never saw it spelled out in the secondary media with clarity.

I never saw anyone note that that the very intercept the Administration says justifies their claim that it was "due to a protest" actually implicates Al Qaeda in the attack.

The intelligence that helped inform those talking points—and what the U.S. public would ultimately be told—came in part from an intercept of a phone call between one of the alleged attackers and a middle manager from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s north African affiliate, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intercept. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.

In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador.

It’s unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn’t mention the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.

Further, as you just read, the "protest" in question wasn't in Beghazi-- they were referring to the protests in Cairo giving them a sort of jihadist momentum for the attack.

I'm sorry if you knew this already. I'm also unhappy with myself for not knowing it, for not reading every one of Lake's scoops carefully, and just checking the headlines.

I only now understand what they specifically meant by "cherry-picking intelligence" -- I had no idea it was this clearly damning for Obama. Quite literally, seizing on the word "protest" (in Cairo, as the message meant it) and utterly ignoring the pre-planned Al Qaeda attack part of it.

But as I've been remiss, I'll make up for it now, and promote the information as well as I can.

Remember: When Biden claims that the Administration reported the intelligence as they understood it, they are claiming that this message is cover enough to claim "protest/YouTube video" -- but not, apparently, enough to tell the public Al Qaeda itself had announced it was going forward with the attack in the same message.

Update/Semi-Correction: Gabe points out the Talking Points, prepared by the CIA, did mention a "spontaneous demonstration" in Benghazi. Although the actual intercepted call mentioned demonstrations in Cairo, and no one ever saw a "demonstration" in Benghazi. Ever.

I think -- can't prove; I think -- these Talking Points were prepared in negotiation with the White House, to get the best spin they could, and the CIA went along with this part of it.

Because there was never a damn sighting of a protest in Benghazi. What was seen by the staffers were security officers turned terrorist snapping pictures of the compound, casing the joint.

The whole "protest" claim seems like a fabrication the CIA thought they could support.

They couldn't, and they can't.

But Gabe is right, that was in the Talking Points.

Funny how "Al Qaeda" didn't quite make the cut.

Oh: And open thread. I'm starting the weekend early.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (451)
Post contains 914 words, total size 6 kb.

Open Thread
— Ace

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.