What Romney Needs to Do in the Final Debate

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


The last debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama will deal with foreign policy. Make no mistake, the moderator, Bob Schieffer, is much like Candy Crowley in that he tries to portray an image of fairness, but he is a liberal. The question is how  he try to manage the debate. My fear is that he will try to squeeze Libya in between numerous other foreign policy issues to dilute the effect.

When it comes to the Middle East, Obama is incredibly weak in terms of his record. No doubt he will stand up there and remind the audience that HE killed Osama bin Laden. Beyond that, he has little to show for his outreach to the Islamic world and support of the "Arab Spring". In his first campaign, Obama promised us that he would repair America's standing in the world-especially in the Middle East. That is now a joke. If he tries to present the Arab Spring as a budding democracy, Romney should be quick to bring him back to reality. The truth is that Obama has supported the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood as they spread their tentacles beyond Egypt. He has also distanced the US from Israel and done little to nothing to stop the advance of nuclear weaponry in Iran. It is hard to say that he has improved relations with the Islamic world when our embassies are under attack or flag-burning protests. In short, Obama's foreign policy is in a shambles. It can even be charged that he is trying to reduce America's influence in the world by design. He should also be asked why he is drastically reducing our armed forces in such a dangerous world.

Of course, China will come into the debate as it should, but here again is a chance for Romney to point out that Obama is letting China get away with (economic) murder against us.

But it is Libya where the President is most vulnerable. Romney needs to pounce on that and hit him hard. If Obama wants to insist that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech September 12, then it makes it even more egregious that for two weeks, his surrogates blamed it on a video protest that spun out of control. There was no protest in the first place. If Obama called it a terror attack one day later, why did Susan Rice tell all the talk shows 4 days after that that there was no sign of a pre-planned terrorist act?

And who sent her out there to spin that yarn?

Romney should also remind Obama that he (Obama) never answered the question from the man in Hempstead who wanted to know who refused the requests for enhanced security in Benghazi and why.

In addition, Romney might want to ask Obama why his Justice Department continues to keep that infamous film maker in prison for some chickensh** probation violation now that the video scenario has been discredited. Is that man really a "danger to society" as the judge said-or has he become a political prisoner to appease the Muslim world? It is a serious question.

This might sound like beating a dead horse to some, but to millions of viewers, they are still getting up to speed on Benghazi now that there has been so much controversy over Candy Crowley's coming to Obama's rescue. Keep in mind the main stream media has been downplaying the issue, but if it is front and center at the debate, people will see it in spite of the best efforts of the media.

I would also suggest that Romney bring up Operation Fast and Furious, which is another great scandal within this administration. He mentioned it in the last debate, but I got the impression that he is not entirely up to speed on it. It is within the realm of foreign policy because one of the biggest victims here was Mexico. Aside from everything else, it is a foreign policy debacle.

Everybody says that the economy and jobs are the biggest issues in this campaign. Maybe so, but the public does need to pay attention to what is happening around the world and how it affects us. Hopefully, Romney can advance that cause.

Death Panels are HERE

By Findalis

The Grouch at Right Truth is a practicing Emergency Room Doctor.  He is a man who doesn't give into hysterics, conspiracies, and tin foil craziness.  So when he speaks out against Obamacare I listen to him.  And you should too.  Having said that, I received this from his lovely wife Debbie of The Right Truth with a plea to pass it along.  That I am doing.

Death Panels are HERE

Today while working my shift in the emergency room, an old lady was brought in very sick and in fact near death. I did my usual workup and evaluation and attempted to administer life saving treatment. It was my plan to admit this woman to the hospital. I found out a little later that this same woman had been a patient here just slightly more than 2 weeks ago with a DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS. I was told that if this woman was admitted, the hospital would not be paid.

The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have "expanded" the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you're in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg.......too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg.

A little later a man was brought in by ambulance, very sick, in pain, and near death. I did my usual evaluation and treatment, doing my best to ease pain and stabilize this man's illness. He needed to be admitted. To my chagrin I found out that he had been treated for the SAME problem at a DIFFERENT HOSPITAL about 10 days prior. If I admitted this man, our hospital would be paid nothing. I admitted the man.

My friends I am caught in a terrible position. I could have given treatment to both of these people and sent them out. There is no doubt that both of them would have died. Oh, I could also be sued for malpractice, but nobody cares about that. That's why we have insurance, right?

My other choice is to admit the person, knowing full well that the hospital will have to absorb the cost of care without hope of remuneration.

This is the climate we as healthcare providers find ourselves in today. How many small and struggling hospitals will survive under such ludicrous payment schemes? Indeed many facilities will close their doors. Many doctors will retire early or simply go do something else. As more and more are added to the Obamacare rolls, there will be less and less access. People will get sicker and yes, people will die because of it.

I had a sick and sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach today after both of these incidents. We have a good hospital. Our nurses, technicians, and support staff work very hard and they deserve to be paid for their efforts. I am not so worried about myself as I am near retirement, but I worry for all the younger folks in the healthcare business and I worry about our seniors who are in the long run going to be sacrificed as the government implements cost cutting shenanigans to cover up their broken promise made way back in 1964.

Folks, this is a nightmare!

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said that we had to pass the bill to know what was in the bill?  We now know what is in the bill.  AND WE DON'T LIKE IT!

If you will, please pass this along.  Either through Facebook, Twitter and/or on your own blog.  And remember to vote on Nov. 6th to remove the problem that caused this disaster:  President Barack Hussein Obama.

Everybody is Talking About Candy Crowley

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com





This is why I am a humble blogger instead of being a talking head on TV.

To tell the truth, I didn't put much importance on Crowley inserting herself into the Libya discussion last night, but she is the talk of the airwaves today. Prior to the debate, both sides had concerns about her, and I guess she justified at least the fears of the Romney camp.

At issue was whether President Obama called the Benghazi incident a terror attack during his September 12 Rose Garden remarks. Last night, he said he did. Romney took issue with that. As I previously stated, Obama made a reference to terror attacks, but it was not really clear if he was talking about Benghazi or terror attacks in general. At any rate, Crowley jumped in and supported Obama-then added that Romney was correct in that the "protest" story was out there for two weeks. Romney supporters are charging that Crowley saved Obama from Romney's points on the Libya issue. You can read the transcript of the exchange as well as the full debate transcript here. In addition, you can see Crowley's explanation post-debate here.

At any rate,  there is a silver lining here. This will get more people talking about Libya and the administration's responses. In the next debate, foreign policy is the topic, and Libya figures to get a lot of air time as well as the so-called "Arab Spring" and Obama's handling of Israel. That is unless, of course, moderator Bob Schieffer tries to keep those items short and move on to other subjects like trade with China and the cost of French perfume. I suspect that after Crowley, all eyes will be watching Schieffer's moderating.

There is another point that should be clarified either now or during the next debate: If President Obama wants to stake out the position that he did indeed call the Benghazi assault a "terror attack" on September 12, then doesn't that make Ambassador Susan Rice's (and others) statements days later about a "protest over a video that got out of control" even more egregious?

This is a great opportunity here. Obama has placed himself in a box. It behooves Romney to nail him on this in the next debate.

Obama October Surprise in the Works?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Hat tip to Miggie




World Net Daily has posted an interesting article by a foreign intelligence source that claims that the Obama administration is negotiating with Iran to arrange a temporary nuclear halt by the Islamic regime to be announced before the November 6 election.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/october-surprise-obama-secret-iran-deal-cut/

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but I think it is worthwhile to post it as it stands in case it actually happens. You can't put anything beyond this administration.

Blasphemous video was a cover for Islamic violence

First posted: 17th September 2012

The blind sheikh who looks like something that has crawled out from the pit of hell

Foreword: A warning was issued by Al Qaeda and affiliated groups in Egypt prior to September 11th stating that the American Embassy in Cairo would be attacked unless the blind sheikh and other jihadi prisoners were released from prison.

The blasphemous video was then released on the 11th which then gave a pretext for all American Embassies around the World to be attacked, after the one in Cairo was first attacked which was already a target of Al Qaeda prior to the 11th for completely different reasons.

Al Qaeda have a well known Libyan wing who have been sending suicide bombers to Iraq over the years, and this group immediately followed suite obviously following orders from higher up the hierarchy, galvanising support on the ground under the guise of the video and then successfully storming the Embassy and assassinating the sitting American Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The video that was released in Egypt, that was created by an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in America who has endangered the lives or all Coptic's in that Country was somehow timed perfectly to Al Qaeda's own timescale in Egypt and set the stage for a well orchestrated global response by fundamentalist jihadi elements throughout the Islamic World.

Al Qaeda said they were going to target the American Embassy in Cairo, the video was released so they attacked it under this pretense and the Islamic World followed suite under the guise of the video, while all along the leadership of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups were directing the proceedings from the beginning that now sees American Embassies around the World ransacked, burning and staff murdered.

How are things going to look when the violent protesting stops?

Al Qaeda might not control the Governments of Islamic Nations but they do control large numbers of moslems on the streets who are ideologically aligned to their religious philosophy as has been shown.

Article: Raymond Ibrahim blogJihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo

by Raymond Ibrahim • Sep 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm

Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground. According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: "The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released."

Stephanie Cutter Tries to Spin Benghazi-Gate

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Note: You may have to highlight the white portions to read the text.




Hat tip Mediaite and Human Events


Stephanie Cutter (Courtesy of Joshua Pundit)


Deputy Obama campaign director Stephanie Cutter was interviewed on CNN today by Brooke Baldwin. This is the same Stephanie Cutter who orchestrated that Joe Soptic scam that tried to link Mitt Romney to Soptic's wife dying of cancer. Today, she told Baldwin that the administration has been open and honest with the American people on what happened in Libya from Day One.

“The administration has been open and honest from day one about the Benghazi attack,” said Cutter. “As more information has become available, they’ve made that information available to the American people.”

To that the Baldwin played a montage of videotaped statements by various administration officials including UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and President Obama (on The View, no less), which, of course, were all over the map. In addition, she played a statement by the mother of one of the victims, Sean Smith, in which she said that she still doesn't know how her son died, and that she has been told lies. To all  that, Cutter lamely relied that they were telling the public as best they could based on what they knew at the time........

"Blah blah blah, woof woof woof, quack quack quack"

And in this stunning statement, Cutter told Baldwin that the only reason this (Libya) has become such a political topic is because Romney and Ryan have politicized it.

"The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan,” Cutter said. “It’s’ become a part of their stump speech, and it is reckless and irresponsible what they are doing.”

You can watch the interview (without the clip of Smith's mother) at the below Mediaite link.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-campaign-spokesperson-libya-is-only-an-issue-because-of-mitt-romney-and-paul-ryan/

Some spin meisters are better than others, I guess.

"She's an amateur. I would never hire her."

BENGHAZI-GATE: The Timeline

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Hat Tip to Poppy (G-d Bless You)
Stolen from Bare Naked Islam

This is a time-line which explains the trail of lies from the Obama regime:

April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.

April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.

May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.

May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.

May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.

May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.

June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”

June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.

Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.

August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.

September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.

September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.

September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.

September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.

October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation