Ezoner, there are several agencies in the Janesville area that can help develop reading comprehension skills. Many of them provide their services at no cost to those using them.

Poo -- You must be joking......

The Bush gas prices were the result of a major terroist attack -- gas also increased as a result of a hurricane.... remember?

Obama made 25-30 years of investment -- as equal to that invested in Oil and Nat gas and dod that in 4 years or less. The technology he has invested in is not economically viable. People do not want -- nor can they afford electric vehicles. His energy policy is a complete joke.

Budgets -- you have to go back to before 1921 ??? Huh??? Really???

Obama policies have cost American lives.... They will continue to do so. Not miltary -- the military understand the risks.

Your arguements are non-starters.

Where to start with factsforyou...I'll take these for starters.

factsforyou said, "Hasnt passed a budget in 3 years ( 1st pres in history to not do so )."

This country didn't even have a formal federal budget system until The General Accounting Act of 1921 was passed. It was the General Accounting Act of 1921 that first required the President to submit a budget. There were 28 presidents prior to 1921. Want to take another guess?

factsforyou said, "Solyndra, Fast and Firious, etc."

You call that a verified fact?

factsforyou said, "Gas prices have doubled."

Not from the $4.21 per gallon they hit under George W. Bush.

factsforyou, besides the other half-truths and lies in your rant, the line "OBAMA OVERTAKES CARTER AS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY," is quite far from what scholars and experts on the subject feel. Then again, I don't hold you to the same standard that I hold the scholars and experts that participated in the research as you obviously are neither.

In an aggregation of polls, Obama ties for 14th place, ahead of Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, Ford and many others. Carter comes in 27th, ahead of George W. Bush and many others. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_... ]

You far righties like to whip up the frenzy when there isn't anything don't you?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/...
--
No evidence of Al Qaeda, little evidence that there was preplanning for than a few days. Nice try Fox News militia. Make false statements over and over again doesn't make them any truthier.

An opinion, not a fact, everyone has one, though it may very well not be true.

We have a president who is not "Optimal", and that is a fact.

"The facts" are not "your facts", unless you can provide proof.

Exactly. And just because the Obama team is doing damage control, does not change the facts.

Just because you say it, doesn`t make it true, except in your own mind..

The Obama team is in "repair mode" before tomorrows debate.

VIDEO.....REAL TIME.

The State Department knew immediately what was going on. Go believe if you want, but it had NOTHING to do with a video.

Obama does NOT get a do over on this. The real story now, is the coverup by this administration.

The intelligence community on Friday once again modified its assessment of what caused the deadly terror attack last month on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya – returning in part to claims that the violence was in reaction to a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over an anti-Islam film.

At the same time, the latest assessment acknowledged there was no actual protest in Benghazi at the time of the attack and that “extremist” elements were likely involved.

The information, provided to Fox News by a U.S. intelligence official

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/...
Not Medis Matters, or that scary Soros, but FOX itself.

pharm

Either you didn't notice...the Media Matters connection, or...you were deliberately trying to deceive.

ThinkProgress is George Soros.

Geraldo Rivera is a left wing hack.

The Peter Doocy clip with segments from FOX, is by Media Matters (Soros). Peter Doocy did NOT say HE thought the attack was from the film. He was reporting what the NYT stated after they spoke with Abu Katala. It was HE...who made that statement. Nice try, Media Matters (and pharm), for trying to slant the news.

"The New York Times caught up with Abu Katala at a luxury hotel in Libya and he says he was just trying to break up a traffic jam near the consulate, and that he was not participating in the raid, but that the attack was tied to that anti-Islamic video."

http://americablog.com/2012/10/foxs-pete...

billnewbie said, "Bush never came clean and accepted responsibility for his failure to provide adequate security in New York City on 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 2,977 people" is one of the most asinine statements I think I've ever seen."

Don't be so hard on yourself, billnewbie. It isn't the first asinine statement that you've made and surely won't be the last. Now, let's compare what you've just said to what I had said earlier and see how the context differs between your statement and my statement.

What I said was, "Honorfirst, if you truly believe what you're saying, then for what reason(s) do you think Bush never came clean and accepted responsibility for his failure to provide adequate security in New York City on 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 2,977 people?"

I think you're statement is perhaps a wee bit too harsh on Bush, but I'm not opposed to adopting your version if it would make you feel better about yourself.

—" The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/...

The trouble with trying to revise recent history to suit one's narrative is that there are too many who remember what really happened. "Bush never came clean and accepted responsibility for his failure to provide adequate security in New York City on 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 2,977 people" is one of the most asinine statements I think I've ever seen. For that statement to ever really work, much more than 11 years needs to go by. Perhaps 60 years later, a revisionist my get some people who have little knowledge of history to believe such tripe. But after only 11 years, all but the most unaware would fall for such baloney.

It is sad to see the President be so evasive about his Libyan scandal. He promised to be a different kind of President. And it is a scandal, not because of the attack on the embassy, but due to the election year cover-up. The motto "Bin Laden is dead but GM is alive" loses its luster when the Benghazi attack is accurately credited to Al Qaeda as it should have been when the President knew it. President Obama either didn't learn the lesson of Watergate that the cover-up can be worse that the original offense, or he learned the lesson of Watergate that a cover-up can put off your day of reckoning past election day. Or both. The latter may be what he hopes, but that's not much of a change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/b...
The video was a catalyst for the Benghazi attack.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/1...
Even to Fox.
The number of security asked for were at Benghazi when the attack happened.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct...

poobah-Sorry,but I didn't confuse anything between your conversations with different posters. No matter of the three,you brought of Bush and 9/11 first. It should not be part of the reply to this article. That's all I'm saying. If Obama brings that up in the next debate then we can talk about but until then lets deal with the here and now.

A noun, a verb, fringe, deflect and spin...

Can't defend the current admin so the best thing to deflect on is attempts at school yard games. Fits right in with this admin and their games of big bird.

Well, look at that. The surrey with the fringe on top and the spinning wheels that make it lean to the right has rolled back into town.

Third_Eye said, "Gosh, I just can't dum it down further than that."

That would be dumb, with a "b." Only my first comment addressed the issues that Krauthammer raised and that was the comment where I was critical of the histrionics of Krauthammer claiming the debate was one incident away from fisticuffs.

My remaining comments were addressing the issues others raised: Honorfirst, whz_bng and yourself. I'm not going to repeat that a fourth time, despite what I'm sure will be your attempt to continue to feign a terrible misunderstanding. And, hey, get that caps lock fixed. It's confusing to people; not sure if we're reading John's blog or your comments.

Who woulda guessed that, the left fringe posters are out with their same tired game of spin, twist, and deflect. Anything to deflect from the failures of this current administration.

Krauthammers column and one of my earlier posts attempts to focus on THE issue.
At 12:35pm I stated
The issue is not what President Obama knew before the attacks but on HOW THE PUBLIC WAS INFORMED AFTER THE ATTACK. Poobah has done an end run by getting bogged down on issues that are irrelevent to the issue at hand which is HOW THE PUBLIC WAS LIED TO IN THE WAKE OF THE BENGAZI ATTACKS.
Gosh, I just can't dum it down further than that.

Richard, with all due respect, you're confusing two separate issues and conversations that I was involved in with two different people. One is Honorfirst holding Obama responsible for the embassy attack and the other is Third_Eye's comparison of the Bush's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks with the birther issues.

My conversation with Honorfirst was asking him to clarify how he could hold Obama responsible for the attack on our embassy and not hold Bush responsible for the attack on the WTC.

My conversation with Third_Eye was in response to Third_Eye comparing the questioning of Bush's responsibility of 9/11 with the birther issues.

Since those two conversations, you've seen a third conversation with whz_bng, in which I clarified his litany of historical inaccuracies about the first attack on the WTC.

Indeed, Romney supporters do want to eat their cake and have it too. They hold Obama to a higher standard than they do Bush and become frustrated when people point this out. It was, according to publicly available credible information, Bush who had personal, prior knowledge of planning by Al Qaeda to attack on American soil with cells already in place and their desire to hijack commercial aircraft and he chose to not take action to attempt to prevent that. There is no publicly available credible information at this time that Obama had any personal prior knowledge of plans to attack our embassy in Libya. That, indeed, places an increased burden on Bush as he had prior knowledge of planning whereas Obama did not.

poobah-Why would Libya make you bring up Bush and 9/11? You said-"Third_Eye, I understand why you would wish to deny that you said, "That whole blaming Bush for 9-11 is really old and well trodden ground. It's right down there with the birthers on the right."
But, that is the issue you raised and that I addressed. Proceed, Governor."
He didn't raise it first, you did. I'm not trying to eat cake just trying to to set the record straight.

No need for narrative on this one: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLo0Jwj03... ]

As a Christian I cannot vote for Mitt Romney. It takes five minutes of research on a search engine to realize this guy is bad news. He is trying to hold Catholics and Christians voters hostage with the pro-life issue while everything else he stands for is not Christian at all. Romneycare provided for taxpayer funded abortifacients and just last week he said on audio (he did not know he was being taped) that he would not introduce any pro-life legislation at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek_jkwGg...

"However, the state department points out that the additional forces were all to be posted in Tripoli not Benghazi, where the assault on the consulate killed the ambassador. The hearing also heard that Nordstrom's memos did not press for additional security staff in Benghazi.

But there is still a dispute about who wanted how many security agents at the consulate.

Nordstrom's July cable requested a standing force of three US security agents in Benghazi, the crucible of last year's revolution, which was the number posted there at the time of the attack. However he said that there had previously been five.

"It was that number five which DS [the state department] had committed to which we continued to ask them to meet throughout my time there," he said.

Lamb said that the number of agents had fallen by two because one was being used as a driver and the other as a technician, and those are not roles normally filled by security personnel. So they were replaced with other people.

Lamb said that was agreed by Nordstrom. "Post had agreed that three was sufficient number on the ground," she said.

The US under-secretary of state, Patrick Kennedy, told the hearing that two agents travelled with Stevens from Tripoli, bringing the total at the Benghazi consulate on the day of the attack to the five – the number Nordstrom told the committee he wanted.

"There were five diplomatic security special agents on the compound the evening of September 11 and there were three additional armed security personnel provided by the government of Libya," said Kennedy."

whz_bng said, "poo, the first attack on the twin towers happened during Clintons time in office."

That is true. It did occur during Clinton's time as president. One month into his first term.

whz_bng said, "If he had done his job and gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance three different times we might not have had a second attack, a war in Iraq and be buried in Afganistan. Calling Bush on it is stupid."

Respectfully, if any statement is stupid it's that if Clinton had gone after Bin Laden after the first attack we might not have had a second attack. First of all, Clinton did his job of going after those who were responsible for the crime. "The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade... ]

Secondly, as the Anti-Defamation League's profile on Osama Bin Lade points out, and as anyone who has read even cursory accounts of the first attack understands, "There is little evidence to suggest a significant connection between bin Laden and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993." [ http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin... ]

Thirdly, Bush had received repeated briefings of Al Qaeda planning an attack on American soil with cells already in place and their desire to hijack commerical aircraft. If you truly believe Bush is not the guy to hold responsible, you're as wrong as you are about Bin Laden's involvement in the 1993 attack and as wrong as you are about Clinton not going after the responsible parties.

I can't believe that people can make such wide-sweeping false statements as you have. They apparently don't study or read history or else they just make things up to suit their beliefs. The level of ignorance of history is just pathetic.

poo, the first attack on the twin towers happened during Clintons time in office. If he had done his job and gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance three different times we might not have had a second attack, a war in Iraq and be buried in Afganistan. Calling Bush on it is stupid.

poorrichard, as your colleage Third_Eye has previously pointed out, it was raised in response to Honorfirst saying, "Obama needs to come clean and accept responsibilty for his failure to provide adaquate security in Libya." That statement was made prior to mine and if you read my comment I said, "Honorfirst, if you truly believe what you're saying, then for what reason(s) do you think Bush never came clean and accepted responsibility for his failure to provide adequate security in New York City on 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 2,977 people?"

I was asking Honorfirst to differentiate accepting responsibility between those events when Bush had unmistakable personal knowledge of the possibility of an attack prior to 9/11 and Obama, according to all public information, did not have personal advanced warning of such attacks on our embassy.

You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. The analysis of Bush and 9/11 is now over 11 years strong. The reason this is being done to Obama, without the advantage of any significant analysis at all, is for purely political reasons - to garner a few more votes for Romney. Which is sickening.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/1...

poobah-I think you first raised the 9/11/01 attacks on your 8:48 AM post.
You're right that the President probably does get daily briefings one way or the other.

Third_Eye, I understand why you would wish to deny that you said, "That whole blaming Bush for 9-11 is really old and well trodden ground. It's right down there with the birthers on the right."

But, that is the issue you raised and that I addressed. Proceed, Governor.

Mitt Romney led the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Utah is a Mormon-led state.
Who did the largest newspaper in Utah, the Salt Lake City Tribune, just endorse for President?
Barack Obama!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/550...
Smart folks!

Poobah, I did not raise that side issue as it was raised earlier by honorfirst. I was trying to put it to bed in order to get to the real issue.
You, having no input on the real issue, then accuse me of moving the goalposts.

At least part of your name sounds accurate

poorrichard asked, "If Obama misses 60% of his intell briefings whose fault is that?"

Seriously, Richard, I have more faith in your judgement than to rely on some group of conservative hacks posing as a legitimate investigative operation. The President receives daily intelligence briefings in a variety of ways.

"The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country." [ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/... ]

"The President of the United States gets the presidential daily briefing every day. He always reads it, every day, because he’s a voracious consumer of all of his briefing material." - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

“The President is among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet. He receives and reads his [Presidential Daily Brief] every day, and most days when he’s at the White House receives a briefing in person. When necessary he probes the arguments, requests more information or seeks alternate analysis. Sometimes that’s via a written assessment and other times it’s in person.” - National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor

Third_Eye said, "The issue is not what President Obama knew before the attacks but on how the public was informed after the attacks."

That's what you would now like to CHANGE the issue to. I was responding to the issues you raised when you said, "That whole blaming Bush for 9-11 is really old and well trodden ground. It's right down there with the birthers on the right." I'm not going to chase you around the football field all day as you try moving the goalposts from one spot to another.

poobah-If Obama misses 60% of his intell briefings whose fault is that?

The issue is not what President Obama knew before the attacks but on how the public was informed after the attacks.
I was criticized on another blog when on Sept 12th of this year I said that the sooner we quit blaming the movie the sooner we will get to the truth.

Poobah says,"He could have immediately shutdown all air traffic as was done AFTER the attack."
In the political atmosphere of pre 9-11 2001 what chance would Bush have had of succeeding in shutting down all air traffic on the information he had available? For how long?
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/repor...

Third_Eye said, "That whole blaming Bush for 9-11 is really old and well trodden ground. It's right down there with the birthers on the right."

No, there's one big difference, Third_Eye. There is incontrovertible proof that Bush had repeatedly been briefed that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, with cells already in place and a desire to hijack commercial aircraft.

There is no official proof to suggest that Obama was born in a foreign country. In fact, there is as much proof of his birth in America as a citizen could possess - an official birth certificate.

poorrichard said, "This keeps getting brought up so that it implies Bush could have stopped the 9/11 attacks but didn't. I don't understand this kind of thinking."

Just as the attack on our embassy keeps getting brought up so that it implies Obama could have stopped the attack but didn't. Are you suggesting that you feel Obama had knowledge of an attack, or was personally asked to provide additional security for the embassy and didn't take action to stop it, Richard?

Remember that Bush was directly told by people in his administration, repeatedly, that Al Qaeda was planning an attack IN America, with people already in place and a desire to hijack commercial aircraft. He made the decision the information was not credible. Big mistake. What could he have done? He could have immediately shutdown all air traffic as was done AFTER the attack. Or he could have significantly tightened airport security as was done AFTER the attack.

You can't have this one both ways. If you're going to hold Obama responsible for the attack on our embassy, when according to all accounts he personally had not received any intelligence briefings about an impending attack on the embassy or requests for additional security that he failed to act on, then you must also hold Bush responsible. That's precisely what I am saying.

mjoseph, If you keep saying the same thing maybe even you will begin to believe it.

Poobah likes to cover old ground because his new ground, the Obama Administration, gives him nothing to stand on.
And he has studies ad infinitum to share with us.
That whole blaming Bush for 9-11 is really old and well trodden ground. It's right down there with the birthers on the right.

poobah-What could possibly have Bush done?
Without having very specific information (date, airports etc)what would you have done?
This keeps getting brought up so that it implies Bush could have stopped the 9/11 attacks but didn't. I don't understand this kind of thinking. No matter how much you hate Bush he would not let that happen (as would no American) and it's foolish to think he would.

Krauthammer is a right-wing nut, like Romney!
What is TRULY SCARY is that Romney has ZERO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE! ZERO!
Foreign Policy Achievements
Obama:
Led the killing of Osama Bin Laden
Improved US relationships with most allies
Directed killing of several leaders of Al Qaida
Implemented harsh sanctions on Iran
Supported removal of dictator Gaddhafi from power in Libya

Romney:
Opened a Swiss bank account to bet against America
Opened a Cayman Islands bank account to bet against America
Opened a Bermuda bank account to bet against America
Infuriated European leaders with his rude comments and 2012 visit.
As soon as Libya consulate attacked, issued press release and tries to try to score political points.
Romney=
No foreign policy experience=
A bad, controlling temper, and not ready to be POTUS

Bowlgal said, "Obama not only put guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords, he put them in the hands of Middle Eastern terrorist."

If that makes you sick, then you must be absolutely distraught knowing that Reagan/Bush gave military aid and cash to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Mujahadeen. Here's a nice photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam after handing over more weapons and cash to Saddam: [ http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/5/520/5... ]

"Failure to provide adaquate security," was the charge made by Honorfirst, bowlgal. It wasn't providing airplanes, cash, military weapons and guns to terrorists.

Honorfirst said, "The one person on earth that shoud be thankful for the Obama 4 years is Jimmy Carter, as he is no longer considered the worst president of all time. Jimmy now has Obama underneath him in that catagory."

Not so fast there Honorfirst.

"A 2010 Siena poll of 238 Presidential scholars found that former president George W. Bush was ranked 39th out of 43, with poor ratings in handling of the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Meanwhile, the current president, Barack Obama was ranked 15th out of 43, with high ratings for imagination, communication ability and intelligence and a low rating for background (family, education and experience)." [ http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/... ]

An additional scholarly study has Obama at #8 overall. "They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey (had he been included, he would have attained eighth place overall)." [ http://americas.sas.ac.uk/research/surve... ]

That poobah statement literally makes me ill that people think that way.
It's so disgusting! It's beyond sick!

poobah, are you completely over the edge? George Bush never put planes in the hands of terrorist. Obama not only put guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords, he put them in the hands of Middle Eastern terrorist.
Then he put a man in jail and accused him of promoting violence with a film nobody saw.
Obama is a danger to this country not only economically but militarily.

Honorfirst, if you truly believe what you're saying, then for what reason(s) do you think Bush never came clean and accepted responsibility for his failure to provide adequate security in New York City on 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 2,977 people?

Again Charles, you hit it out of the park. Obama needs to come clean and accept responsibilty for his failure to provide adaquate security in Libya. The one person on earth that shoud be thankful for the Obama 4 years is Jimmy Carter, as he is no longer considered the worst president of all time. Jimmy now has Obama underneath him in that catagory. Let's vote for a team with integrity, and that would be Romney/Ryan.

"no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs"

Please, enough with the histrionics, Krauthammer. And Marian, if the only news that people watched is FOX News, it's very understandable why they would feel the way you do.

dbt-That's a disgusting thing to say just because you don't agree. Being a lefty I know you can't be shamed but at least try to be civil.

Mr Krauthammer
I'am from Sioux City Iowa and I just want to thank you for being so honest and straight forward in your column. My husband also watch you on Fox news in fact that is the only news we watch.We totally agree that if Obama wins again we as a country are in BIG trouble.I really don't think America can survife another for years with him as preisdent.

Marian