Sunday Evening Open Thread

It's not quite evening here, but it is on the East Coast. Either way, it's time for an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Second Woman in Petraeus Email Probe Identified | Student Wears Joker Mask to Colo. Theater, Gets Arrested >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I really hate it... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:53:23 PM EST
    when it gets dark this early. It's like being cheated.

    Yes, but think of it this way (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:26:06 PM EST
    It is only about a month and a half or so until the days start getting longer again.  Winter Solstice!    ;-)

    I like your positive attitude (none / 0) (#14)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    It's dark here by 5 pm these days. Will be dark by 4:20 pm in a month. Yikes!

    Soups and stews to ward off the blues. And maybe a nip of brandy. That's all I can come up with.


    Yes, soups and stews are good (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:48:02 PM EST
    at this time of year.  Not to mention the brandy.  Or a good port or sherry.  Or whatever your choice of libation.   ;-)
    But I accept the celestial mechanics that dictate our seasons.  It is what it is, and we humans are puny and unimportant when we consider the universe.  But we also can accept that as dark and cold as it is now, it will get warmer, the days will get longer, and Spring will return.

    Made a really good butternut squash (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    soup with squash from the garden.  It's one of those recipes I tinker with almost every time I make it, I think.

    The real recipe calls for you to halve and seed the squash and roast until tender; I do that, but I also put some peeled garlic in the hollows, drizzle with olive oil and scatter onion chunks on the pan to roast at the same time.  After it all cools, I scoop out the flesh and put it in a bowl with the roasted onion and garlic.  I chop some more onion, along with celery and carrot and a couple more cloves of garlic, and sweat it in the pot with some olive oil, salt and pepper.  I then add the squash/roasted veg and about 5 cups of good quality chicken stock and some chopped sun-dried tomato.  After that comes to a bubble, it gets covered and simmers for about a half hour.  In goes the immersion blender to puree the whole thing, along with a little chopped chiles in adobo for a smidge of heat.  Serve it with a dollop of sour cream, if you like - it's perfect with a salad and some good, crusty bread.



    I make a butternut squash casserole (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    that is to die for.  It is absolutely not good for your cholesterol, or if you are trying to limit your calories, but it is really tasty.

    3 pounds butternut squash, peeled and
    2 eggs, beaten
    1 cup shredded Cheddar cheese
    1 medium onion, chopped    3/4 cup half and half
    1 teaspoon salt
    1/4 teaspoon pepper
    Cooked bacon bits, plus the grease (as much bacon as you dare!)
    1/2 cup crushed butter-flavored crackers
    2 tablespoons butter, melted
    1.Place squash in a saucepan and cover with water; bring to a boil. Reduce heat; cover and simmer for 15-20 minutes or until very tender. drain well and place in a large bowl; mash. In another bowl, combine the eggs, cheese, onion, milk, salt and pepper, bacon bits and grease; add to the mashed squash and mix well.
    2.Transfer to a greased 2-qt. baking dish. Sprinkle with cracker crumbs. Drizzle with butter. Bake, uncovered, at 350 degrees F for 40-45 minutes or until a knife comes out clean.


    Going to try this ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 07:50:09 AM EST
    ... for Thanksgiving.  Thanksgiving calories don't count ...

    Ooh...I might have to add this to the (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 08:43:50 AM EST
    Thanksgiving table this year...that sounds really good; when it comes to butternut squash and sweet potatoes, I'm all about the savory - can't stand the treatments that involve things like maple syrup and marshmallows.

    Can't wait to try it!


    I usually add more (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    cheese and butter than the recipe calls for, and a whole lot of bacon.  (Hey, if a little is good, more is better!)
    I'm making this for Thanksgiving, too.  (As Yman said, Thanksgiving calories don't count.) And I'm also making a butternut squash pie, rather than a pumpkin pie.  I got two bushels of butternut squash from the garden this year, so I need to keep using them!

    That's what is nice about living out here. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    We're in the tropics at Latitude 19-21N, and so the length of our days and nights doesn't deviate all that much between winter and summer. The sun sets at approximately 6:00 p.m. on Winter Solstice, and 7:40 p.m. on Summer Solstice. We don't recognize Daylight Savings Time because there's really no need for it.

    Grrrr..... (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:47:38 PM EST
    Winter is beginning to settle in, it's gonna be 3 months of Winter and I have to go to the dentist tomorrow.  Sigh....

    Obama being kept out of the loop? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:20:49 PM EST
    To me, the big story behind the story of Petraeus is that Obama's director of intelligence knew about the CIA mess several weeks ago -- but did not tell the White House.  Not until election night, when he knew  that Obama and his staff were outatown and a bit busy.

    What else is the intelligence community not telling Obama?  Why does the Republican House majority leader get told and not the Democratic president?  This is the part to be concerned about for the country, as it appears that the idiot Petraeus exposed only himself and not our secrets.

    (Note:  This is not to say that Eric Cantor did anything wrong, from what I can tell; he told the director of intelligence but correctly, I think, did not take it himself to tell anyone else . . . at least, as far as we know now.  More on this may develop, I hope, and not get ignored amid the juicy sex stuff.)

    Me too. I was wondering if there are legal (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    or ethical issues about telling the WH about criminal investigations until there has been a decision made about where charges are going to be brought? Even asking sounds rather quaint.

    Canto only knew because someone leaked it to him. He was not officially 'informed', from what I read.

    Definitely interested in hearing some answers,


    Yes, again I agree that Cantor (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:37:53 PM EST
    looks to actually have behaved himself well.

    But again, that the unofficial leak came to a Republican leader rather than to the White House . . . and then that, after Cantor contacted the director of intelligence, the latter again did not tell the White House . . . well, I also am trying to see how there could be some reason or rule not to do so, but I cannot come up with one.  So, I hope that some media are looking into that and not just looking under Petraeus' desk.  

    I know that Congress is going to look into this,  says Feinstein, but her issue is about why others in Congress -- such as the chair of the Senate intelligence committee aka herself -- were not told.  

    My issue is about why the President was not told by his intelligence director.  If he and we don't see a good reason, more heads may have to roll?  
    The White House staff is going to be spending even more time on trying to get even more nominations through the Senate?  And if the intelligence community is not telling all to the White House, will that mean more surprises like this sprung at the last minute about nominees to mess with Obama?

    What a way to ruin his week, right away on Wednesday morning.

    On the other hand, a really bad week for Romney still isn't over, either.  He just conceded Florida.  Other states still are counting.  Is he going to have to concede each one, one by one?


    James Clapper, the intelligence director, (none / 0) (#23)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:56:13 PM EST
    did not learn of this until election night. He then called Petraeus and talked to him and advised him to resign. The next day, Wednesday, Clapper notified the White House of the affair and that Petraeus wanted to speak to the president.

    I guess Clapper could be faulted for not telling Obama on election night. It sounds like he wanted to get Petraeus' side of things first.

    Clearly, the FBI did not tell the WH while the investigation was ongoing. There may be a good reason for that. i just don't know. But Clapper was not keeping the info from Obama.


    Okay, then that fits -- as even more evidence (none / 0) (#27)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:43:09 PM EST
    that Obama's people are being kept out of the loop, and at an even higher level.  That is:  Thanks for the correction about the intelligence director, but then, is the problem the FBI director?

    Cantor's staffer told the FBI director some weeks ago, I read -- but he did not tell the intelligence director until weeks later, and on election night, which guarantees even more days' delay.  And ruins election night for Obama and his people, huh?

    Or was dropping this news to the Obama team on election night an attempt to distract, buy time, etc., from some FBI screwup?  Interesting backstory is developing about the FBI saying that the whistle-blower is not a whistle-blower (with legal protection) but an unhappy agent who was taken off the Petraeus investigation, etc.


    after the election (none / 0) (#73)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 05:26:51 AM EST
    seems to also be a good time for the Jesse Jackson Jr investigation leak (re-elected)

    Seems to be a lot of intrigue between the CIA and (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    FBI involved.

    I suspect the WH knew b/4 last Tues. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:00:29 AM EST
    but the CYA story is they didn't.  

    I think the CYA was that departments (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    were told to not tell them anything not red red red hot for a certain period of time before the election.

    I read that Cantor knew because an FBI employee, (none / 0) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:36:55 PM EST
    described by Cantor as a whistleblower, contacted Congressman Dave Reichert asking to speak to someone in the GOP leadership about a what that employee termed a national security breech.

    Cantor talked to this person then called the FBI. The FBI told him, basically, we can neither confirm nor deny.

    So, Cantor may have a mole in the FBI, but the agency is not keeping him in a loop that excludes the president.


    I can't figure out why (none / 0) (#19)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    Dave Reichert was approached by the so-called whistle-blower. Reichert? He doesn't have anything to do with the House Intelligence Committee. He sits on Ways & Means. This part of the story makes no sense to me.

    I don't know why they refer to this guy as a (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:17:51 PM EST
    Whistleblower. I think he as just passing on juicy intel for political purposes.

    Pretty Credulous, aren't we? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    Geez, and Glenn Greenwald was just complaining about the death of investigative journalism esp when it comes to the wars - and now you think the Commander in Chief was totally out of the loop on this?

    Here's the opposite case being made:

    Some new information from Broadwell


    ... through the warped prism of right-wing politics, is like watching an angry dog chase its own tail.

    Well (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:29:06 PM EST
    That's such a BRILLIANT rejoinder Donald.
    Oh, but not actually an argument...not that you've proven capable of making those in the past.
    That guy's a former spook, so he probably knows more about how this stuff works than you do. I think I'll go with his hunches for now.

    I wouldn't go with "hunches" (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:08:42 PM EST
    from anyone who purports to have the inside scoop, and yet insists on remaining anonymous. That bleeds credibility right there.

    Furthermore, I continue to ask why Reichert was contacted first. He's a nobody in Congress. In fact, he's thought to be quite an empty chair by Washingtonians. And, despite your anonymous spook's assertion that Reichert's having been a former sheriff means something, it means nothing. The former sheriff is now considered to NOT have been the one who caughth the Green River Killer (as he loves to claim), but to have been so uniquely incomptent that he let Ridgeway go -- only to kill more women.


    Since, despite hating my guts... (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    You are more reasonable than Donald when it comes to anything that might be "not in the interests" of the Democratic party, I will refer you to my link down at the bottom of the thread wherein Broadwell herself speaks.
    Now either those prisoners were real - in which case she almost certainly got that information from Petreaus - or she was lying for some reason when she had no apparent reason to want to lie.

    I already read it on your spook's site (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:47:17 PM EST
    and I have to wonder why this speech was not reported in the national news that week (two weeks ago.) Seems, kind of odd for everybody to ignore it if the claims are supposedly so damaging. After all, the speech wasn't a secret event. Even the Denver Post reported on the speech, but made no mention of those remarks concerning the attack on the consulate in Libya. But they do link to the speech. And I just listened to all 41 minutes of it.

    Most of it is pretty boring, IMO. She's not a captivating speaker, by any means. (And maybe she should learn the difference between astrology and astronomy...sheesh.) But the remarks in question occur at 35:20, so you can listen for yourself.

    I think it's important to note that

    1. She does not claim that there was a secret prison in the consulate. She claims that there was a CIA annex next to the consulate, and that the CIA annex had arrested two Libyan militia members and "was holding them prisoner there." Make of that what you will.

    2. She also claims that she got her information ("which was just released today" -- meaning the day of the speech) from a reporter on FOX News.

    Is she kidding with that? She gets her info from FOX News, in a report which is not repeated or cited by any other major news service, and we're supposed to believe it's the real scoop? Oh, but wait. She does say at the end of that spiel that the information hasn't actually all been vetted yet. (Thud.)

    Please. I think I'll withhold the congratulations on this supposed bombshell of a "scoop" that's now two weeks old when other news organizations -- legitimate news organizations -- start reporting the same thing.

    Incidentally, she starts gushing about her work with Wonder Boy at about the 14-minute mark.



    So was Larry Johnson. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    Slayerzero: "That guy's a former spook ..."

    And like Larry Johnson, this guy's out to sea without mainsail, rudder and compass, and one wave short of a shipwreck.


    Here's a REAL white wing dingbat (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:02:25 PM EST

    Short summary:
    "No, an out of the way meeting place was needed, to stage logistically, a transfer of arms, weapons, and supplies to the Syrian Jihadis through Turkey (hence the Turkish Ambassador). This explains the curious reduction of security in Benghazi, after months of attacks. The bright guys in the White House, no doubt including Obama himself, thought they had it covered. Hey, the removed Khaddafi. Hugged the Muslim Brotherhood tight. And were sending arms and weapons (likely including anti-aircraft missiles to take down Assad's jets) and supplies to the jihadis. The word was sent. And they figured, no problems. What could possibly go wrong?"

    Oh, and lest I forget to mention: Obama was going to cancel the election.

    Now THIS is a real white wing dingbat to anyone except the sheltered Donalds of the world, who think anyone who thinks Obama made any mistakes or did any wrong whatsoever in Benghazi is the same exact way...


    Silly logic (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    Just because there is someone else higher on the dingbatitude scale does not mean that that the party that is somewhat lower on the scale is not, in fact, a right-wing kook.  One look at his profile will confirm he is a winger.  His specious theories may be entertaining for a certain audience, but they shouldn't be taken seriously without actual evidence.

    You are actually correct (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:30:43 PM EST
    Donald seems to be on the record that he doesn't think there was any malfeasance or a big enough mistake by the Obama administration for this to amount to the tiniest ant in an anthill.

    I'd say he's all about minimization, so OF COURSE anyone who thinks Obama made a big mess of things might as well have 2 heads with 3 eyes on each head. So he's not exactly the most dispassionate observer on this, and he's not in the position to be talking "credibility" or not.

    Now, here's a question: why did Broadwell say there were prisoners in that compound?


    Not the point (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:02:16 AM EST
    Aside from the fact that you're putting words in Donald's mouth, no one claimed (including Donald) that he was a "dispassionate observer".  I'm just pointing out the fault in your logic, as well as the fact that Spook86 is just some anonymous blogger pulling theories out of his @$$ without evidence.

    I have no idea why Broadwell made the claim, if there's any truth to it, or where she got such information (if, in fact, she did).  Neither do you or Spook86.


    I'm not on record as saying any such thing. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:39:09 PM EST
    But here's a statement I'll happily stand by:

    When you listen to whackbots like Spook86 and then come here to pass on their tripe, you're making yourself look ridiculous.


    Real Right Wing dingbat lol (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    Must be the repeated syllables tripped up my writing tongue...though I do think Whiskey is white...

    Hey, Zero, tell it to ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:29:23 PM EST
    Hey Donald (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:33:26 PM EST
    Why did Broadwell say there were two prisoners in that compound?

    4 dead Americans including a possibly sexually assaulted US ambassador and a guy in jail for making a tasteless but legal Youtube video want to know.


    Good night, Zero. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    Who the he[[ is Ace of Spades? (none / 0) (#57)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    Another anonymous former spook?

    Ace? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:39:45 AM EST
    Some neocon blogger I know next to nothing about though I do know that guy (Whiskey) nearly worships him and he gets lots of hits from neocon websites. Believe it or not, though I follow neo-neocon (and Whiskey, but not every month, he's too obviously deranged to take in more than small doses. I must admit to thinking he drinks every time he posts)I've been to Ace's place all of one time. I have no clue who he claims to be or even why they seem to like him so much.

    See, I'm weird. I go to places like Genderratic, The Spearhead, Feministe, this blog, Firedoglake, Glenn Greenwald, The Conservative Treehouse, The Christian Science Monitor and the two blogs I mentioned above as well as more traditional news sources like The Baltimore Sun, The Guardian, The BBC, CNN, google news(my favorite aggregator) Al-Jazeera, and , occasionally The Washington Post or New York Times. I'll occasionally hit Kos or Democratic Underground as well. Most of those places at least once a week, a few of them daily.

    Reading all those opinions and takes on the news where I get my sometimes quirky ideas, but I like to believe it gives me an ability to understand the many sides of most political arguments.

    I tend to lean to the left of most neocons on foreign policy, but just a little bit too far to the "right" of most here. I generally agree with Kdog on most "social" issues, though I'm a bit more law and order than most on here (except the ones who always go for the prosecution)and I support limited use of the death penalty.

    I guess I sort of included all that because I'd rather I was better understood rather than simply being assumed to be a happy member of some Republican He Man Woman Haterz club.


    Hmm. Truth be told (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 02:03:53 AM EST
    I never thought of you as a he-man.

    Yes, you're pretty credulous (none / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:14:52 PM EST
    and even provide the evidence with your link.

    Me. I'm not according credibility to anyone in this as yet.  I'm asking questions, and I'm not accepting easy answers -- not anyone's, including yours.


    You seemed all too ready to believe (1.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    The Commander in Chief wouldn't be briefed on something that had implications for his foreign policy team and the Benghazi situation...

    No, she's not. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    Ans stop acting like such a rodeo clown.

    Spook86 is a crackpot. Period. End of discussion. Good night.


    I'll just keep asking you about Broadwell (1.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:34:55 PM EST
    Until you crack.

    Nighty night, little rabbit...


    Here's Broadwell's speech (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    First the context from my first link:

    "...And one reason was provided, strangely enough, by the CIA Director's former paramour, Paula Broadwell.  Israel National News reporter Gil Ronen was (apparently) the first journalist to discover a lecture Ms. Broadwell delivered at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26th.

    Broadwell's address, part of an annual alumni seminar, have been posted at YouTube.  Beginning at 34:52 into her remarks, Broadwell answers a question concerning General Petraeus and the Benghazi incident.  She affirms the CIA Director was aware of requests for assistance from American personnel on the ground, then adds a couple of tantalizing details: first, the CIA was holding two Libyan prisoners at the Benghazi annex, which was attacked after the consulate fell.  That certainly provides another rationale for the assault on the annex.

    To our knowledge, no one has previously acknowledged the presence of Libyan prisoners at that facility.  That sort of information would come from someone in a position to know--say, the CIA Director.  It also suggests that the affair between Broadwell and Petraeus did not end (as originally reported) when the retired general took over the agency in 2011."

    And here's the link to the video (which I've copied by the way): Broadwell address

    Heh, it wouldn't surprise me if this is the video that did her in, more so than the bad judgement to use the CIA director's email to send threats to someone she thought was a rival. I think someone heard her spill the beans about the prisoners in this video or so the address and then said to themselves - what is she getting out of him?!

    Now, this is the way to contribute (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:21:19 PM EST
    to the discussion, with evidence, not nasty attacks.

    See my comment above (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    She tells the University of Denver crowd that she got the info from a report on FOX News. If you've listened to the speech, you already know that.

    Here's Foreign Policies Take (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    Does this count as a news source?

    Of course the CIA denies it had prisoners at the annex. Of course the problem with the CIA as an institution is you can never know when they are telling the truth.

    So in the end, you have to make up your own mind.
    As for me? I'm checking Fox to see if she could have gotten the information or rumor or whatever it is from them or if she was merely covering her ass and counting on nobody to notice or check.


    please watch your language (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:54:43 PM EST
    and use asterisks if you must use a word like a*s. Otherwise the comment will be deleted.

    I'm sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:17:55 AM EST
    Will do. I've been warned about this or that before, but never language.

    Via (none / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:30:57 AM EST
    the dailybeast, the Fox News story:

    According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

    Meanwhile Broadwell is quoted in the dailybeast article as saying:

    Later she lamented that the coverage of Benghazi had compromised U.S. efforts. "As a former intel officer," she said. "It's frustrating to me because it reveals our sources and methods. I don't think the public needs to know all of that."

    Eye-roll (directed at her).

    There may be something larger afoot but this does not seem to be the definitive piece to me, yet, anyway, esp. as she referred to Fox News explicitly in her talk.


    Oops, contradictions in her claims... (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:38:54 AM EST
    Broadwell told the Denver audience there were two prisoners. FOX said there were three...

    Broadwell and her FOX friend, Jennifer, need to get their stories straight.


    So far from going over various news sources (none / 0) (#64)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:23:15 AM EST
    From the time period in question (Oct 25 to Oct 26) I've seen mention of prisoners from one story on Fox but NO mention in that particular newstory that the annex might have been attacked due to those prisoners. So I'm beginning to think it's likely she either heard from somewhere OR inferred (on her own) that the attack might have been to get those prisoners. I'll continue to go through this tomorrow and determine that much for sure, at least.

    She named the FOX reporter (none / 0) (#67)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    "Jennifer" something. Can't recall the last name. I continue to find it very strange that she referred to the report and named the reporter, but the information never appeared on any other major mainstream media.

    Here is the text to the (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:06:05 AM EST
    pertinent portions of her Denver speech.

    That is a very right wing Israeli website (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:27:21 AM EST
    which promotes the idea that America is an enemy of Israel, and even refers to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." It is also propogating the same right wing rhetoric on the Bengazi attack as FOX News and other American conservative media.

    As an example, an op-ed on the site right now includes these lines:

    Today, ten years later, America does not stand strong. She does not defend freedom. She does not defend her allies. She does not defend her sovereign property when, for example, a US Consulate safe-house in Libya was attacked.

    America retreats. She appears to yield to those who hate her. She cannot protect her Ambassador to Libya.

    The world engorges with hate. Three American officials in Libya are murdered. America apologizes.

    I think it's much better for people to go straight to the link I posted for the whole unedited speech and hear it for themselves.


    it popped in Google News (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 01:16:59 AM EST
    and I prefer text to watching a video. (I tend to avoid videos except music videos.) Is the text inaccurate? Is so I'll take it down. If it's accurate, I'll leave it up. No one has to read the other stuff on the site.

    The text seems accurate (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 01:29:23 AM EST
    (and yes, it's a mostly boring 41 minutes of video). I just hate to give clicks to such an off the rails winger site.

    Will wonders ever cease (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:42:26 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- Conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday the Republican Party should accept new ideas, including the much-criticized suggestion by Democrats that taxes be allowed to go up on the wealthy.

    "It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer." link

    Lol. I guess it proves the old adage... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    When you've got 'em by the ba**s, their hearts and minds will follow.

    or their cocks and hinds follow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    same difference in this case, tho.



    no offense to cox or hinds (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    Courtney Cox? Ciaran Hinds? (none / 0) (#13)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:27:28 PM EST
    Just messin' with you, Dadler. ;-)

    On second thought, is that an old adage (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:04:28 PM EST
    or just Nixon-speak? What have I become?

    Maybe not so much (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:10:30 PM EST
    What are the Dems willing to trade for Republican's considering revenues - such as tax loopholes and fees?

    I'm hearing top Democrat Chris Van Hollen right now on Fox promise major entitlement reform, which the Republican all agreed was terrific although they disagreed on the details. Republican Bob Corker said he was relieved that Democrats are finally ready to make the necessary cuts for the long term.
    Well, we've seen that they are just that obstinate. When offered a Grand Bargain to slash the hell out of everything for very little in return they walked away before so there's no reason to think they won't do it again. And perhaps that means they are a little bit smarter than we realize. Having walked away before, the Democrats have no illusions that the GOP will lose their nerve. So, if everyone agrees that the end of the world is nigh if they don't reach agreement, the Republicans are in a good position to extract every last concession for very little in return.

    And since the Democrats have made it clear that the only hill they will die on is the "revenue" hill, the Republicans can probably get away with offering up Huckleberry's fake "sacrifice" and the Dems will sell it as a win. digby

    Yep, the same old DINOs (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    are in charge of killing the New Deal, just like the last four years. Anybody who says otherwise is either a bold-faced liar or is being willfully ignorant. And Chris Van Hollen is the one that Pelosi is supposedly tapping for the role of House minority leader, should she retire. I sincerely hope that Alan Grayson (FL) keeps his promise to not allow the Dems to betray seniors and future seniors. I like Grayson, I think he has a lot of integrity, and I relish the days ahead when he goes to the podium of the House to tell them all that "reforming" SS and Medicare is a NON-STARTER.

    I tend to think that if we get past this (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    so called 'fiscal cliff' nonsense with the tax cuts expiring and the sequestration,  the air will be out of the sails to do anything else. 45 days is too short for entitlement reform, I heard both parties say this morning. I predict a tax cut deal of what Obama proposed, plus some budget cuts to get around the sequestration thing, which will bad, but not grand bargain bad, and everything else will be put off for a long while.

    Interesting thing will be what fig leaf they devise to walk back sequestration.

    Plenty of time to mount a solid opposition to drastic entitlement changes, as we all did when Bush proposed them.


    I don't think there is plenty of time. (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:50:36 PM EST
    Obama was hot to gut SS and Medicare last year and was only stopped by Republican refusal to agree to any, even negligible, tax increases.

    Obama is hot to get his Grand Bargain, and many Dems in Congress seem very eager to help him. You know the behind-the-scenes negotiating is going on right now.

    I consider any cuts to SS and Medicare and Medicaid drastic. Raising the retirement or Medicare age? Drastic. Changing SS to a chained CPI? Drastic. Means testing SS? Drastic. Making Medicare recipients pay a higher % of medical costs? Drastic.

    Any cut, in any form, to these programs will harm people. For many SS recipients, SS is either most or all of their income. The average SS recipient lives on less than $20,000/year.

    In what sane and just world is cutting these benefits in any way a fair trade for having millionaires pay a little bit more?

    If you are sincere about protecting the future of SS raise the income cap. If you are sincere about saving money with Medicare, negotiate Part D drug prices.

    The time to start applying pressure is now. And keep it up. Call your congressperson, and call your senators. If Obama works out a deal with Boehner and Boehner gets enough Repub. House members to vote for it, the Senate becomes our firewall.


    "drastic" entitlement changes? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by sj on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    No need for any "entitlement" changes.  No need the adjective either.  That's falling into Obama-speak where gradually "some" cuts become acceptable.  

    They're not.


    I used drastic intentionally because of Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    repeated statement that he will not allow drastic changes to SS and Medicare. My point was that any change that adversely affects recipients, current or future, is a drastic change and should not be allowed to happen.

    Also, in the comment to which I was responding ruffian used the adjective "drastic."


    Speaking for myself only (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    I would support a change to the upper limit on FICA withholding, say from the current approximately 107k to 250k. Not for removing the cap altogether, but I would not consider a tweak to it a drastic change. Those are the kinds of things I was referring to - not changes in benefits or retirement age.

    I would think (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    those with no or minimal wages as earned income but that exceed a certain level of income from dividends, capital gains, etc. could and should also be included in a small percentage of increase in tax to be considered as an addendum to FICA.

    Actually, I would support that change as well (none / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    but nothing -- drastic or non-drastic -- that cuts services in any way whatsoever.

    It seems like that's the one change (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 01:54:05 PM EST
    that could actually solve what has been termed the "looming" insolvency problem, that gets little to no attention or traction or consideration.

    It's okay to think about making changes that result in benefit reductions to people who depend on those benefits to keep them out of poverty, but it's not okay to talk about taking away the automatic pay raise that people making over the current cap get when they reach it.

    Gee, wonder why that is?  

    I don't understand this world; I've decided that's a good thing, because I think it means I've retained some hold on my essential humanity.


    I think the problem is the modern GOP is so right (none / 0) (#18)
    by Rupe on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    that people like Frum and Kristol sound positively moderate in comparison.

    Off with their heads at Murray Coal (none / 0) (#22)
    by DFLer on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    A coal company headed by a prominent Mitt Romney donor has laid off more than 160 workers in response to President Obama's election victory.

    Murray Energy said Friday that it had been "forced" to make the layoffs in response to the bleak prospects for the coal industry during Obama's second term. In a prayer circulated by the company, CEO Robert Murray said Americans had voted "in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom."

    "The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals [sic] of our Founders," Murray said in the prayer, which was delivered in a meeting with staff members earlier this week.

    "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corporation for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build."


    I think Big Pizza did the same, but haven't found that story.

    This speaks for itself. Nothing more to say...for now.

    Yes, crappy pizza, too... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    Papa John's CEO John Schnatter said he plans on passing the costs of health care reform to his business onto his workers. Schnatter said he will likely reduce workers' hours, as a result of President Obama's reelection, the Naples News reports. Schnatter made headlines over the summer when he told shareholders that the cost of a Papa John's pizza will increase by between 11 and 14 cents due to Obamacare.

    I get my pizza... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:49:42 PM EST
    from Mario's, a local joint.

    Al's here (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    in Jax
    .I will never eat. Papa John's again.

    My ongoing love-hate relationship with ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    ... American journalism's equivalent of The Girlfriend from Hell, Maureen Dowd, continues unabated. In this chapter, our MoDo apparently can't resist kicking Mitt Romney in the a$$ one final time as he walks out the door and off into the political sunset, muttering bitterly to himself:

    New York Times | November 10, 2012
    Romney Is President - "IT makes sense that Mitt Romney and his advisers are still gobsmacked by the fact that they're not commandeering the West Wing. (Though, as 'The Daily Show' correspondent John Oliver jested, the White House might have been one of the smaller houses Romney ever lived in.) Team Romney has every reason to be shellshocked. Its candidate, after all, resoundingly won the election of the country he was wooing. Mitt Romney is the president of white male America."

    Why can't I just quit you?

    Because when Mo is good... (none / 0) (#36)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    ...she is very, very good, and when she is bad, she is deliciously Dorothy Parker vicious.

    You nailed it. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:42:25 PM EST