National Empty Chair Week continues to evoke creative responses:

---
Obama became president with absolutely no knowledge in the field of foreign affairs. In almost four years he and his sidekick have made basically every mistake possible.

In the final analysis foreign policy must rest on a healthy dose of common sense,logicand willingness to be tough and surefooted.

Reagan was a pragmatist first and an ideologue last. He believed, as did GW, that people prosper more under circumstances of freedom than under dictatorships.

When people gain freedom it does not follow they necessarily know how to handle their new found circumstance. America has been dealing with Democracy and freedom for over 200 years and we are still a work in progress. To believe those who have been under the boot of oppressive leaders for eons will know what to do is naive. Furthermore, failing to understand radicals who become viral under such circumstances is also naive.

Once again it is evident, to most objective viewers, Obama has failed both domestically and in foreign affairs. Why? Because he is a dreamer like Carter and finds it impossible to allow reality on the ground to interfere with his predisposed dreamlike theories.

He truly believed apologizing for our nation's behavior would gain friends among radicals. How naive but then he was a community organizer whatever the hell that means.

Now Obama is reaping the consequences of his own naivety and the price will be high and will mount. Does Obama have a solution, is there even a solution and why, coming from where he did, does Obama have any basis for suggesting Romney and Ryan have no standing?

I suggest Romney is a problem solver and comes at problems with a record of more successes than failures in a variety of fields and that is a solid foundation on which to build.

Does anyone in their right mind believe four more years of Obama and Biden will bring about positive change or do they just hope it will and are too embarrassed to admit they screwed up the first time?

What is most ironic is that Obama's merciless criticism of GW has returned to haunt Obama! (See 1 below.)
---
Israel's Defense Minister seeks to clarify the supposed misunderstanding between Israel and America . He asserts he is on the same page as Netanyahu and the stickiest issue between Israel and the U.S. is a matter of timing.

Barak also indicated that the U.S. has placed several red lines on the table. (See 2 below.)
---
Netanyahu speaks out as well and denies his recent comments were not made to interfere with America's presidential election. He does this in an interview with Herb Keinon of the J.P.. (See 3 below.)
---
Accordingto Memri: " Protesters In Egypt is a Call For "Demonstration of Millions" Tomorrow, Say: "Our First Demand Is To Burn The Embassy And Expel The Ambassador" (See 4 below.)
---

Nouriel Roubini weighs in on the economic picture and states that good and bad news makes for unstable markets. He believes the various actions by world central banks, including our own, should be viewed as kicking the can down the road which will get heavier and heavier. (See 5 below.)

---

Erick Erickson has an unflattering view of the press and media because yesterday they showed their stripes focusing on Romney while President Barak Nero was fiddling and the Middle East was burning.. (See 6 below.)

---

Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Libya and Egypt: Fool Me Twice
By Tom Trinko
There's an old saying:

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

George W. Bush was pilloried by the media and Democrats (including Obama) for not foreseeing the lack of gratitude by the Iraqis who had been oppressed by Saddam and the time it would take to get Iraq to be responsible for itself. Bush's crime was not being omniscient and knowing the mind of the Muslim world perfectly.

But now we see that Obama has committed the same mistake -- and worse, that he has been fooled at least twice.

After Obama's attacks on Bush, he should have known that merely "liberating" a Muslim country is not enough. Rather, follow-through is needed to ensure that the end state of the country after the Arab Spring isn't worse than how it started -- for both the U.S. and the locals.

Even ignoring the fact that prior to Obama's actions, Libya was not a threat to the U.S. and Egypt was an ally, Obama has committed a far worse version of Bush's mistake.

When Iraq fell, it became obvious that more would be needed to keep Iraq free and friendly. As a result, Bush went out on a political limb and did what was necessary to ensure that Iraq would end up better off -- and a friend of America to boot.

When Libya fell, Obama completely ignored the lessons of the Iraq war and just walked away. He did nothing meaningful to ensure that a truly pro-Democracy, pro-American government would be established.

Similarly, after Obama helped overthrow the friendly government of Egypt, he seemed completely comfortable with the new government even though it was run by people long associated with a violent terrorist organization. When the Egyptian military tried to moderate the extremism of the new Egyptian government, a government that won't protect Christians and wishes to see Israel disappear, Obama let them hang out to dry

Shame on Obama then for repeating the mistake he so vociferously condemned Bush for -- not just once, but twice.

Similarly, Obama apparently had no realization that there might be a threat in Libya, even though there had been a recent attempt on the life of the British ambassador to that land. It appears that our ambassador to Libya was protected by Libyans, not Americans. Can you imagine Bush leaving the ambassador to Iraq guarded by locals at any time, much less on 9/11 in 2004?

President Obama should have known that there would be enough radicals in the country to present a risk to Americans.

Ronald Reagan made the same mistake, which led to the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. Of course, back then, terrorism was new, and we can understand why Reagan didn't see a massive suicide attack in Beirut coming. But Obama has made the same mistake of thinking a recently war-torn Muslim country is "safe" after decades of experience with the true nature of Muslim extremism.

Obama's administration is still clueless about the nature of what is going on in Libya, as witnessed by this comment from Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

Today many Americans are asking, indeed I asked myself, 'How could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate? In a city we helped save from destruction?'

George W. Bush, had he been irresponsible, could have said the same thing about the situation in Iraq. If he had done so, both Hillary and Obama would have viscously attacked him for his stupidity and lack of planning. The situation in Libya is a direct result of the Obama administration repeating the same mistakes they have condemned Republicans for. But unlike Republicans, who were in new situations, the Obama administration has repeated mistakes because its people have ignored recent history.

Shame on Obama for being fooled twice in thinking that the terrorists in Libya and Egypt presented no threat. Obama should have learned from Reagan's mistake. Instead, Obama made the same mistake, but this time the mistake was made after decades of experience with Muslim terrorism and full knowledge that extremist groups were operating at will in a chaotic Libya -- a Libya whose chaos was due to Obama's mishandling the country after it was "liberated."

Obama is clearly at fault for ignoring the hard won lessons of Beirut and Iraq. By replacing America's knowledge of the ingratitude of Muslim extremists with Obama's own fuzzy love for all things Muslim, Obama laid the groundwork for the spectacle of an innocent American ambassador's body being dragged through the streets in a country he "liberated."

And shame on Republicans if they let Obama and his MSM minions switch the discussion to the "evil" of Romney criticizing Obama on foreign policy -- the same Obama who constantly attacked Bush on foreign policy. Americans need to know that the death of Ambassador Stevens was a direct result of Obama repeating the same mistake for which he mercilessly condemned President Bush.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barak: I see eye-to-eye with Netanyahu on Iran

Defense Minister Ehud Barak tells "Globes" he expects Iran to complete its
nuclear weapon breakthrough in the coming year.
By Hagai Golan and Stella Korin-Lieber

"It is very important that when Israel says that it is not possible to allow
a nuclear Iran and that all the options are on the table, it means it. There
is agreement between us and the Americans on the need, but there are
differences about how fast the clock is ticking. We're continually reviewing
the reality, and the Americans understand and know from us that Israel
reserves the right and the responsibility to decide for itself on matters
related to its future and security, and they respect this," Minister of
Defense Ehud Barak told "Globes" in an interview.

"Globes": Do you still see eye-to-eye with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
on this point?

Barak: "I always see eye-to-eye. We see the same threat, but had we already
made a decision and approved it, you'd definitely know about it."

Your recent remarks seem to imply that you've taken a step back, to allow
the Americans to deal with the situation.

"I have no idea what is being depicted. I say, 'It's necessary to listen
more to the Americans. We'd all be happy if we were to wake up one morning
and discovered that the ayatollahs had seen the light, that the penny had
dropped, and that they had decided to cancel the nuclear program. I don’t
think that is going to happen. However, just as the Americans respect our
rights, we respect theirs. None of us would object if they act. We know that
they aren’t going to act in the near future. So we monitor and review."
The Americans are prepared to give Netanyahu a way out to back down, and
they won't give Iran a deadline. Criticism by the US administration and
leaders of other countries is rising.

"I say this loud and clear: there is something missing in the dialogue here.
There is great exaggeration in the description of the crisis, and in the
differences between us and the Americans, some of which are due to exposed
nerves and sensitivities amongst us too, including in the media dialogue,
but maybe also amongst them. I'll give some examples. When I told people,
more than once and out loud, that Israel cannot, in any strike, destroy
Iran's nuclear program, that we can only delay it for a long time, some
people immediately jumped up and shouted that Barak is harming Israel's
deterrence. We agree with the Americans that [Iran's supreme leader] Ali
Khamenei has not yet given the order, 'build me a weapon or facility', but
we see them entering the zone of immunity in which it will be very hard to
undertake a surgical strike and significantly delay them. When I say this,
people yell, 'You've harmed deterrence!'

"And now, a week later, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General
Martin Dempsey says that Israel can only delay Iran's nuclear program, and
people jump up and cry, 'What a blow Israel has taken right between the
eyes.' I say, 'Guys, the defense minister of Israel said it first.' There is
no surprise. The facts are known, and they are simple."

Do you mean to say, 'I said it first?

"I want to tell Israel's people that the dialogue between us has gone far
beyond what is desirable. There is something too fast and too hasty. I want
to tell the public that in statesmanship you can't look into the future,
there is no hocus-pocus. All in all, the dialogue between us and the
Americans is much more honest and simple. Behind closed doors, the
discussions are very serious and matters are in shades, fifty different
shades.

"Obviously, it would be better for us were the Americans to speak out more,
though they have spoken a lot. They have also drawn some red lines: if the
Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, if the Iran's make a breakthrough to a
nuclear weapon, and begin weapons-grade uranium enrichment."

Can they know in real time?

"The Americans believe that they can. They have explicitly made two quality
descriptions of red lines, not detailed like the small print in a financial
contract, but lines: if the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, we'll be
forced to act; and if there is a breakthrough to a nuclear weapon, we'll be
forced to act. They have explicitly indicated this."

The Americans talk about a year.

"Yes, during the coming year, Iran is liable to complete the breakthrough.

The Americans have let it be known that if there is a massive Iranian attack
against its allies in the Persian Gulf, where the US has military bases,
they will act, and they have even said that in the event of a massive attack
on Israeli cities, they will act."

Have they said this explicitly?

"Yes. This can be seen in the American media. It's no secret. US radar
operates here, which provides warning, they have ships which can assess the
warning, they have some interception capability, they have really declared
that they will be forced to protect Israel if its cities come under massive
attack. But someone here tried to cause tensions and describe in the press
as if the Americans promised that if Israel does something, then they will
continue the work and attack Iran. That's not true. They never said that,
and that is why Dempsey was forced to say, 'Excuse me, we never said that
Israel holds the trigger and it can activate America. I also don’t think
that it is proper to think in those terms."

About understandings on whether to attack or not?

"We, and only we, should take decisions that affect us. The Israeli
government is responsible for the security and future of the country. We
mean exactly what we say: all the options are on the table. But after we’ve
said this, there should be no confusion: the US is our most important ally,
and it helps a lot."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Netanyahu: I am not interfering

in US presidential election

By HERB KEINON

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu dismissed as “completely groundless” allegations he is manufacturing a crisis with US President Barack Obama just before the November 6 American election to influence the outcome in favor of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Netanyahu, in a Rosh Hashana interview with The Jerusalem Post that will appear in full on Sunday, said his call for the United States and the international community to set red lines for Iran was not at all connected with the US political campaign.

“It has nothing to do with the American elections, because the Iranian nuclear program doesn’t care about the American political calendar,” the prime

“If the centrifuges stop miraculously, if they stop preparing enriched uranium to make atomic bombs, then I suppose I wouldn’t have to speak out.

“But the Iranian nuclear program proceeds unabated and they don’t care about the internal American political calendar. For me this is a policy issue, a security issue, and not a political issue,” he said.

Netanyahu characterized his post-midnight telephone call Wednesday with Obama as a “good conversation.”

“We spoke about our common goal of stopping Iran from developing its nuclear weapons program, and our desire to closely coordinate our efforts,” he related.

When asked whether Obama referred to his comments that those who do not place red lines in front of the Iranians cannot place a red light in front of Israel, Netanyahu replied that he was “not going to get into details of this discussion.

“Obviously I have my views and am not exactly shy about expressing them when I think that Israel’s vital security concerns are involved,” Netanyahu said. “This is my responsibility as the prime minister of the Jewish state.

We are facing the greatest security challenge of any country on the face of the earth, and when I feel I need to speak out, I do.”

'When we have differences of opinion we don't sweep them under the rug'

Obama phoned Netanyahu past midnight Wednesday following a day when friction between Jerusalem and Washington burst into the open as Netanyahu made his comments about red lines and red lights. Just before the phone call, Israeli officials confirmed that the leaders would not be meeting during Netanyahu’s 60-hour visit to the US later this month.

Netanyahu, who described the current level of intelligence and security cooperation with the US as “very close” and “very important,” said that did not mean the two countries did not have different perspectives.

“It is only natural that we do,” he said. “And when we have a difference of views we don’t have to sweep them under the rug. I believe there has to be clear limits drawn to Iran’s advance toward nuclear weapons, and that is not something I intend to be quiet about.”

On other matters, Netanyahu revealed that he has not yet spoken to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy, though he said Israel had “many contacts with the Egyptian government, primarily through our military contacts.”

He said that the new Egyptian government still needed to “decide the depth of its commitment to the peace treaty. We are deeply committed to it, I hope they will be too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Islam's Black Flag Flies over Egypt

By Raymond Ibrahim

The United States embassy of Egypt is under siege. According to Fox News, "Mainly ultraconservative Islamist protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Egypt's capital Tuesday and brought down the flag, replacing it with a black flag with an Islamic inscription to protest a video attacking Islam's prophet, Muhammad. Hundreds of protesters marched to the embassy in downtown Cairo …. Dozens of protesters then scaled the embassy walls, went into the courtyard and took down the flag from a pole. They brought it back to the crowd outside, which tried to burn it, but failing that, tore it apart. The protesters on the wall then raised on the flagpole a black flag with the Muslim declaration of faith on it, 'There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet.' The flag, similar to the banner used by al-Qaida, is commonly used by ultraconservatives around the region…. By evening, the protest grew with thousands standing outside the embassy, chanting 'Islamic, Islamic. The right of our prophet will not die.' A group of women in black veils and robes that left only their eyes exposed chanted, 'Worshippers of the Cross, leave the Prophet Muhammad alone.'"

Some clarifications for context: Islam's black flag with the shehada and sword inscription is not an al-Qaeda banner but rather Islam's most ancient banner, popularized by the Abbasid caliphs in the 800s. In other words, these protesters were not imitating al-Qaeda; rather they—and al-Qaeda—are imitating Islam's heritage, replete with jihad against the infidel. Same with the phrase "worshippers of the cross"—Islam's ancient appellation for the hated Christians.

The reason behind this latest rampage is Muslim outrage over the appearance of a film deemed offensive about the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Apparently it depicts him inciting jihads, deceiving people, and exercising his libido—not unlike what is recorded in Islam's own authoritative biographies and hadiths of the prophet. It is not exactly clear who made the video, though Egyptian expatriates and Copts are being accused, possibly in conjunction with Pastor Terry Jones. In other words, the reason for this latest bit of Muslim outrage is once again the issue of free speech—in the same camp of Danish Muhammad cartoons, burned Korans, and any number of other freedoms of expression exercised by non-Muslims, and even Muslims.

The U.S.'s formal response to this terror campaign against its embassy and the desecration of the American flag has, once again, been to lay the blame on free speech. In a statement, the U.S. said, "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals [film makers] to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Interestingly, while very concerned about the "religious feelings of Muslims," the U.S. embassy in Egypt had nothing to say about the fact that, right before it was attacked, a Christian man in Egypt stood on trial for "insulting" Islam—even as a throng of Muslims besieged the court-house, interrupting the hearing and calling for the man's death. Apparently appeasing thin skins is more important than speaking up for those whose lives are at stake—not just Christian Egyptians, but now U.S. employees—over issues of freedom.

Left unsaid and unknown in any Western media is the fact that the U.S. embassy has long been under threat, but for different reasons. Earlier, the Egyptian paper El Fagr reported that Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya had issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. embassy in Cairo to the ground unless all the Islamic jihadis currently imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay were released: "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."

Despite all this—despite longstanding threats to the U.S. embassy, followed by a real attack, culminating with the destruction of the American flag—Victoria Nuland, the U.S. State Department's Spokesperson, speaking in response to this latest attack, said that "none of this suggests that there are hostile feelings for the U.S. in Egypt."

In fact, none of this is surprising—neither the attack on the U.S. embassy, nor the U.S. government's head-in-the-sand response, with strong words reserved only for those non-Muslims exercising their free speech rights. This event also explains the situation in a way that even a child can understand: the more you appease—as the Obama administration has been doing with the Islamic world in ways unprecedented—the more contempt you earn from those you appease, and the more demands will be made of you. Thus, today, far from being respected as a super-power, the U.S. is increasingly seen as a subdued, contemptuous dhimmi—who must say "how high?" whenever Muslims command "jump!"

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Fiddling at the Fire

By Nouriel Roubini

Nouriel Roubini, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business and Chairman of Roubini Global Economics, was one of the few economists to predict the recent global financial crisis. One of the worl

PARIS – Financial markets have rallied since July on the hope that the global economic and geopolitical outlook will not worsen, or, if it does, that central banks stand ready to backstop economies and markets with additional rounds of liquidity provision and quantitative easing. So, not only has good – or better-than-expected – economic news boosted the markets, but even bad news has been good news, because it increases the probability that central-banking firefighters like US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi will douse the markets with buckets of cash.

But markets that rise on both good and bad news are not stable markets. “Risk-off” episodes, in which investor sentiment sours, are likely to return if economic news worsens and confidence in policymakers’ effectiveness drops.

CommentsIn the eurozone, euphoria followed the ECB’s decision to provide support with potentially unlimited purchases of distressed countries’ bonds. But the move is not a game changer; it only buys time for policymakers to implement the tough measures needed to resolve the crisis. And the policy challenges are daunting: the eurozone’s recession is deepening as front-loaded fiscal consolidation and severe credit rationing continues. And, as eurozone banks and public-debt markets become increasingly balkanized, establishing a banking union, a fiscal union, and an economic union while pursuing macroeconomic policies that restore growth, external balance, and competitiveness will be extremely difficult.

CommentsEven the ECB’s support is not obvious. Monetary hawks – the Bundesbank and several other core central banks – who were worried about a new open-ended ECB mandate pushed successfully for strict and effective conditionality for countries benefiting from the bond purchases. As a result, they can pull the plug on the program if its stringent criteria are not met.

CommentsMoreover, Greece could exit the eurozone in 2013, before Spain and Italy are successfully ring-fenced; Spain – like Greece – is spiraling into depression, and may need a full-scale bailout by the “troika” (the ECB, the European Commission, and the International Monetary Fund). Meanwhile, austerity fatigue in the eurozone periphery is increasingly clashing with bailout fatigue in the core.

CommentsSmall wonder, then, that Germany, politically unable to vote on more bailout resources, has outsourced that job to the ECB, the only institution that can bypass democratically elected parliaments. But, again, liquidity provision alone – without policies to restore growth soon – would merely delay, not prevent, the breakup of the monetary union, ultimately taking down the economic/trade union and leading to the destruction of the single market.

CommentsIn the United States, the latest economic data – including a weak labor market – confirm that growth is anemic, with output in the second half of 2012 unlikely to be significantly stronger than the 1.6% annual gain recorded in January-June. And, given America’s political polarization and policy gridlock, we can expect more fights on the budget and the debt ceiling, another rating downgrade, and no agreement on a path toward medium-term fiscal consolidation and sustainability – regardless of whether President Barack Obama is reelected in November. On the contrary, we should expect agreement only on the path of least political resistance: avoidance of tough fiscal choices until the bond vigilantes eventually wake up, spike long rates, and force fiscal adjustment on the political system.

CommentsIn China, a hard economic landing looks increasingly likely as the investment bubble deflates and net exports shrink. Meanwhile, the reforms necessary to reduce savings and increase private consumption are being delayed. As in Europe and the US, the worst will be avoided in 2012 only by kicking the can down the road with more monetary, fiscal, and credit stimulus.

But a hard landing becomes more likely in 2013, as the stimulus fades, non-performing loans rise, the investment bust accelerates, and the problem of rolling over the debts of provincial governments and their special investment vehicles can no longer be papered over. And, given a new leadership’s caution as it establishes its power, reforms will occur at a snail’s pace, making social and political unrest more likely.

CommentsMeanwhile, Brazil, India, Russia, and other emerging economies are playing the same game. Many have not adjusted as advanced economies’ weakness reduces the room for export-led growth; and many delayed structural reforms needed to boost private-sector development and productivity growth, while embracing a model of state capitalism that will soon reveal its limits. So the recent slowdown of growth in emerging markets is not just cyclical, owing to weak growth or outright recession in advanced economies; it is also structural.

CommentsSimilar dithering is apparent at the geopolitical level as well. The major global powers are still trying negotiations and sanctions to induce Iran to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. But Iran is playing for time and hoping to reach a zone of immunity. By 2013, an Israel that – rightly or wrongly – perceives Iran’s nuclear program to be an existential threat, and/or the US, which has rejected containment of a nuclear Iran, may decide to strike, leading to a war and a massive spike in oil prices.

CommentsIneffective governments with weak leadership are at the root of the problem. In democracies, repeated elections lead to short-term policy choices. In autocracies like China and Russia, leaders resist the radical reforms that would reduce the power of entrenched lobbies and interests, thereby fueling social unrest as resentment against corruption and rent-seeking boils over into protest.

CommentsBut, as everyone kicks the can down the road, the can is getting heavier and, in the major emerging markets and advanced economies alike, is approaching a brick wall. Policymakers can either crash into that wall, or they can show the leadership and vision needed to dismantle it safely.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)

The American Media Beclowned Themselves Yesterday

By: Erick Erickson

)

Yesterday, as the American consulate in Libya was smoking and the rioters were returning in Egypt, the President of the United States flew off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser while his spokesman was telling the American press corps that yesterday wasn’t really a normal political day. Had it been George W. Bush, the media would, right now, be marching on the White House with pitch forks and torches. Remember, on 9/11, as events were unfolding in Washington, the American media was crying for President Bush to return to Washington. They wanted Daddy at home in the White House where he could tuck them in bed, damn the security issues of getting him there.

I get that Chuck Todd is a former Democrat hill staffer. I get that the Politico is riddled with Democrats, some former activists and a former staffer for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I get that Michael Scherer from Time magazine is a left wing reporter for Mother Jones and Salon.com turned respectable, “objective” journalist. I get that Ben Smith, leading up Buzz Feed, is a leftwing journalist paraded about as if he is some sort of objective reporter at a trendy site full of cat photos. [Editor's Note: Totally forgot to include Journolist and have updated to include it] I get that precious Ezra Klein started Journolist so reporters and political operatives could collaborate on the news and narrative and now he sits at the Washington Post and gets trotted out as a fact checker. What I really get is that the American media runs with a herd mentality, leans left, and yesterday collectively fell over their group think as they leaned so far left to focus on Mitt Romney and not President Obama. Yesterday, the American media beclowned itself in ways I didn’t really even think was possible, even knowing how in the tank for Barack Obama they are.

Yesterday, we learned that there were no Marines protecting our Ambassador to Libya despite State Department warnings about violence and kidnappings in the Benghazi. We already knew Al Qaeda was coming on strong there. But we relied on locals for support and now we know the locals betrayed us as they have in the past in Afghanistan and Iraq too.