The Middle East scenario no one wants to talk about.
Well, if would get off oil, the Middle East would have to grow up. That's a scenario we should be talking about relentlessly, but Exxon doesn't want us to.
I think everyone that's served in the military over the last 30 years should get free gas for life from the oil companies. That's the least they can do.
Will the FBI ever reach Benghazi? It's good thing this isn't a rescue operation. Any evidence has long vanished or been destroyed.
Meanwhile, Barry and Hillary keep their eyes open for new youtube videos and hire Jimmy Carter to fix the mid east.
The Middle East would just be catching up with the rest of the world carved up by France and Britain at Versailles. All of their colonies in Africa and the Pacific and the Balkans have already realigned, either peacefully, or violently.
Your president cannot bring himself to utter the words terrorist attack. It's beneath him. The fault lies with the First Amendment, not Barry.
Did Romney say his "Prosperity Pacts" would be used to help Palestinians improve their lot?
According to Eric Pianin: " ...the Bush administrations sought to use foreign aid as a lever to promote economic growth, poverty reduction and soical reform to expand free markets . . . . Since 2001, the US Government has spent a total of $ 13.3 billion on soc-call trade capacity building assistance, with substantial sums going to Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia ..." Ahh - the Romney plan. For reporters to grab hold of Prosperity Pacts to show us Romney is indeed a capable candidate might be grasping at straws.
The gang that couldn't shoot straight or tell the truth.
"From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack"
But Glenn Kessler manages to resist assigning the appropriate four Pinocchios, after all there is an election to be won by Barack the Unready.
The real Middle East scenario:
"The Libya DebacleThe more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure."
A monumental cockup by the regime of Barack the Unready.
I have to think that the artificial straight-line borders drawn up by imperial powers will not stand forever. They cut right through cultural territories, separating peoples who do not want to be separated. It's not stable. Unfortunately I do not see a very "organized" way of sorting it out. It'll probably be war.
Joe - agreed in general with your comments this morning on MOJO. But I wish Joe S, or one of his producers, watched MSNBC in their off hours. Rachel Maddow last night, and then in the 9:00 hour Chuck Todd, today, showed Romney turning from his remarks to Ron [Allen] about how passing Romneycare in Massachusetts showed his empathy, to the stage where he got up and blasted Obamacare.
Taken with his incredibly contradictory remarks about Emergency room care ("it's socialism/it's the way we provide care to people who don't have insurance") it seems clear that Romney has no intention of making sense of his thoughts about health care.
I was disappointed that the NYTimes and MOJO presented only his pride in Romneycare. He has achieved something I don't think any other candidate for office ever has. It's so hard to keep up with his self-contradictions that it is almost possible for people to hear only what they want to hear.
To be fair to Romney (as if it matters), he has for some time now (at least since the primary debates) held to the position that RomneyCare is good because a state did it but ObamaCare is bad because the feds did it. That allows him to say good things about the one while anathemizing the other.
Of course, it's still a cop-out. But it's at least it's a knowing copout.
He runs one hell of a risk by saying anything good about Romneycare. The right hates the very idea. It doesn't matter if Mitt trots out the state level plan or the national plan. It's like trying to tell your wife that you were really drunk and had sex with the neighbor's wife even though you can't stand her. The only thing she hears is that you did it.
But Romneycare works at the state-level. Or something. Are they backing it this week or against it, I can't remember.
Also need to add that he must know he is lying about emergency room care being "free" to the recipient. A bill is sent, and the result is that medical costs are the number 1 cause of personal bankruptcies, accounting for 62%.
It's also the number 1 cause of emergency rooms closing, hospitals closing and those that are injured in accidents having to be driven further and further to find care endangering the lives of citizens that paid the taxes for those services.
I wonder why California would be having a problem with people using emergency rooms for free health care.
The other myth about ER care is that you can just drop in and get anything you want treated. It doesn't work like that. It's for acute issues. If you show up in the ER with diabetes looking for a month's supply of insulin, you won't get it --- come back when you're in a coma or have gangrene. If you show up with cancer, you're not getting chemo or radiation or surgery --- come back when your organs actually shut down.
It's just the times kathy. The one great achievement that Romney should be trumpeting at every stop is the poison pill to his base.
Can't imagine why Romney thinks, at this point in the campaign, that there is anything to be gained from willful ignorance. But he persists.
Ritt has no courage to his convictions. He couldn't think for himself if he were wired to B[l]ush's Brain.
"For once, Romney's remarks were untainted by the anger and ignorance demanded by his party's base. "
And then Romney's polling numbers plunged.
It's really very simple: If Romney keeps the base energized, he loses the moderates. If he appeals to the moderates, he turns off the base. His problem is a miniature of the one on the Middle East -- labels don't match loyalties. He needs a domestic electoral coalition to win, and he's not going to get it.
So the solution for his election problem may be as elusive as the solution for the Middle East, if nowhere near as consequential. Fortunately for us, we have a firm enforceable deadline on the election. Unfortunately for the whole world, there's nothing comparable in the Middle East. (Bibi's attempt to get the United States to draw a red line acknowledges the kick-the-can-down-the-road nature of contemporary Middle East policy-making.)
Okay, Mitt has a sane side that he exposed in talking about the Middle East. What he doesn't have is any real solution to the current mess. But neither does Obama. As an election issue, it's pretty much a tie. As a problem for the world, it's number one on the list.