CBS News' Steve Kroft asked President Obama to respond to Mitt Romney's criticism of the Administration regarding the Libya situation, The President's response:

Fred Hiatt's Editorial Board!!!

it was stunning to see the GOP nominee renew his verbal offensive Wednesday morning, when the country was still absorbing the news of the first death in service of a U.S. ambassador since 1988, as well as the loss of three other Americans. Though reports were still sketchy, it appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the Libyan security force at the consulate.

At Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis writes:

The statement issued last night was ill-advised and dumb, but at least the campaign had the excuse of not being aware of the facts behind the embassy statement. Nearly twelve hours later, after we not only knew the truth behind the Cairo Embassy statement but also knew that four Americans, including an Ambassador, had died was there any attempt by the Romney campaign to walk back their ill-advised statement? Of course not. Instead we got [Romney's morning appearance.] A worse response to the news of the deaths of four Americans who were serving their country I cannot possibly imagine. Worse yet for Romney, it was sandwiched between televised statements by Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama that made his attempts to characterize the Obama Administration in the manner that he did look foolish and ham-handed[.]

Mataconis' post is titled "Could Foreign Policy Cost Mitt Romney The Election?" I think what he is really asking is "Could Romney's Lack of Judgment And Honor Cost Him The Election?" The answer, I submit, is yes.

Who said this?

[We] reject the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.

Compare that to this:

[We] condemn[] the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

Sounds similar no? The difference? Mitt Romney's campaign is circulating the former talking points AFTER the news of the death of the US Ambassador to Libya. The latter was issued by the US embassy in Cairo before the unrest faced the embassy. So who did the "apologizing?" My timeline says Mitt "No Apologies" Romney.

CNN reports on the Romney campaign's planned damage control talking points:

Questions & Answers:

Don’t you think it was appropriate for the embassy to condemn the controversial movie in question? Are you standing up for movies like this?

– Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance. [..] But we will not apologize for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.

[...] If pressed: Governor Romney repudiated this individual in 2010 when he attempted to mobilize a Quran-burning movement. He is firmly against any expression of religious hatred or intolerance.

[More . . .]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking now.

President Obama to speak at 10:35 a.m. from the Rose Garden at the White House. Watch here.

Mitt Romney, speaking before the President, after expressing condolences, quickly pivots to making a political statement. In my view, Governor Romney's political statements are ill timed, at best. Now he is taking questions about the midnight statement his campaign released attacking the U.S. consulate in Cairo. Romney's appearance is, to me at least, a disgrace. Tomorrow is plenty of time to play politics. Today is not the day for this. Poor taste, to put it mildly.

I'll be flying solo on Daily Kos Radio from 11 to noon Eastern today. The topic of discussion will be the events in Egypt and Libya, and the terrible film championed by Terry Jones, the infamous Koran burner, that ignited them. I'll also discuss the responses to events by the Obama Administration and the Romney political campaign.

How to Listen to Daily Kos Radio:

Can't see the Flash player? Click here to download the stream directly.

Open Thread.

NYTimes:

The United States ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three of his staff in an attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi Tuesday night by an armed mob angry over a short American-made video mocking Islam’s founding prophet, the White House and Libyan officials said on Wednesday.

In a statement confirming the four fatalities, President Obama said he strongly condemned the killing — the first death of an American envoy abroad in more than two decades — and had ordered increased security at American diplomatic posts around the world. Previous accounts of the events in Benghazi had spoken of only one death among State Department officials.

“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants,” Mr. Obama said, calling Mr. Stevens “a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States” who had “selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi” and, as ambassador, “supported Libya’s transition to democracy.”

To read this "exclusive" report by a news service called GigaOM, one would expect news in the ongoing lawsuit brought by a former New York prosecutor against the major cell phone companies for gouging the FBI, federal and state law enforcement agencies for compliance with wiretap orders.

A former New York prosecutor, John Prather, claims AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and Sprint regularly charged law enforcement agencies 10 times what they should have for routine wiretaps. He’s now suing on behalf of the FBI and state and city police departments to recover many millions of dollars for overcharging that allegedly took place for almost 20 years.

The case provides a window on the evolving world of wiretaps during an era of increasing surveillance. But the case is complicated because Prather stands to get a big chunk of money if the case succeeds and, as the phone companies argue, he may not be a real whistle-blower in the first place.

First, the lawsuit is not new. It was filed almost a year ago. Second, it's a Qui Tam lawsuit which means the prosecutor is essentially a bounty hunter who collects a portion of any proceeds awarded (like a whistleblower), usually about 15 to 25%. [More...]

This takes "brass" as they say:

“If President Obama were participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis then perhaps he would understand why people are so offended at his efforts to take sole credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden,” Cheney told the Daily Caller on Monday night[.]

Oh really? This from a guy who ignored the intelligence briefings on the imminent 9/11 attacks?

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. [...] But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders [...] were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein[. ...] In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. [...] Yet, the White House failed to take significant action.

Dick Cheney, one of the most disgraceful and despicable men ever to hold government office.

I'll be sitting in for David Waldman this morning on Daily Kos Radio from 9 to 10 Eastern.

How to Listen to Daily Kos Radio:

Can't see the Flash player? Click here to download the stream directly.

Open Thread.

The Voice is back! The first singer from Scotland was really good. It's going head to head against the X-Factor premiere on Wednesday, and Simon Cowell is really upset.

Even if you've never watched Bachelor Pad, tonight's finale is worth watching -- just for the ending. It really is a first for the show and pretty controversial.

In other news, CU Prof Ward Churchill lost his battle to regain his job today. The Colorado Supreme Court opinion is here. Churchill will try again with the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.