Usa Thread

[unit731]

Florida: New Poll show President Obama leads Romney 47 to 44 percent

 

 

"President Barack Obama edging past GOP candidate Mitt Romney 47 to 44 percent, according to new data from a NewsmaxZogby Tracking Poll."

 

Link

[unit731]

Kids Polls: Obama leads Romney 6% in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Ohio

 

 

"Sahit Muja: The kids have spoken! The winner of the Scholastic Student Vote is President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, with 51 percent of the vote. The Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, received 45 percent of the vote, while 4 percent of kids voted for other people."

 

 

LINK

 

Those liberal, progressive, marxist, communist, homphile teachers are corrupting the youth.

[zzzz]

It could be Republicans want to kill Willard Romney.

 

Willard's stand on abortion,

education, immigration, education

are now more in lined what Obama believes then what the Republican party believes.

Is Willard Romney a closet Democrat?

 

I've been noticing that Willard sounds more and more like a Democrat as we get closer to the election. Maybe his stategy is to sound more like a Democrat than Obama. He can always revert to his old Republican self if he wins.

[Steve]

If Obana wins Ohio and I suspect he will (Early voting shows a clear majority) i think its over. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin will do it for him. He leads in a few smaller swing states. I think no matter what Obama will get over 300 electoral votes. Depending on the next debate and excluding any extraneous events, Obama could clear 320 or 330 if he gets Virginia or Florida.

[Flashermac]

It is interesting to say the least.

 

 

Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9

 

 

Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

 

In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama only five.

 

Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

 

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

 

And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect:

 

1. She wouldn’t let him respond when Obama lied about the auto industry. First she called him Mr. Romney instead of governor, then protested, “there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to... We have all these folks. I will let you absolutely... OK. Will - will - you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.†Romney never did get the chance to respond.

 

2. After the question asking whether gas prices as they stand now are the new normal, Obama got 2 chances to respond. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him off by saying, “ … in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to.†She didn’t.

 

3. When discussing how he would deal with deductions, just as Romney was about to destroy Obama with statistics, Crowley jumped in to save her man not only by denying the value of statistics, but changing the narrative to say Romney’s numbers couldn’t possibly add up:

 

“And Governor, let's - before we get into a vast array of who says - what study says what, if it shouldn't add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again …â€

 

4. When Romney was trying to make a point of Obama’s pension investing in China, Crowley cut him off by insinuating people were tired of him talking:

 

“Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. Make it short.â€

 

Then she really tried to humiliate him with this: “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.†She never asked Obama to sit down.

 

5. The infamous incident when she interrupted Romney’s claim about Obama’s refusal to call the Benghazi murders a terror attack:

 

“It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. So let me - let me call it an act of terror...

 

Prompted by Obama to say it a little louder, Crowley obliged:

 

“He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.â€

 

6. 6. Just as egregiously, when the question was about assault weapons and Romney naturally started to discuss fast and furious, Crowley quickly shifted him away from that and turned it into an attack on Romney’s assault ban position:

 

“Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?’

 

The fact that Obama escaped all night long by lie after lie didn’t seem to disturb Crowley in the slightest. She had her shadowy agenda, and she stuck to it fiercely. Now it is our job to throw her out into the sun where every American can see exactly how dirty she is.

 

My link

[Flashermac]

More evidence of deception

 

By Jennifer Rubin

 

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

 

American Crossroads, taking exception to Obama’s announcement last night that he really had declared Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, has sent out a memo, which reads:

 

"The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later.

 

"On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror†— Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.â€

 

From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012:

 

"Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?

 

"MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.

 

"Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you —

 

"MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

 

"Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just —

 

"MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."

 

Here, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually affirmed Gov. Romney’s position that the White House did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Carney also said the now infamous video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi†the day before.

 

The memo goes on to argue that Obama’s position on Libya is “untenable.â€

 

That’s about the shape of things. Did he call it an act of terror and go around misleading the country for two weeks that it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie? Or did he not call it terror on Sept. 12 and lie to the voters last night?

 

There is another problem with Obama’s response. Recall this part of his answer: “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after themâ€

 

So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it. But you know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event. So really, why have a meeting? Well, the weeks of confusion and dissembling that followed should answer that.

 

Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to heighten protection for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary? Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed?

 

The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident. The Obama White House may be out spinning the press to buy into the Obama-Crowley line, but no one is buying it. As the rest of the information comes to light, the president retains less and less credibility. Like a fish on a line he flops this way and that, trying to break free of his self-created trap.

 

And finally, this Reuters report suggests the administration was entirely unprepared for the 9-11 attacks.:

 

"In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.

 

"Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States."

 

In short, it appears that the Obama administration did not take 9-11 all that seriously, and when tragedy hit, it went into spin mode. Now the president is caught in a tangle of contradictions. Not even Candy Crowley can get him out.

 

Washington Post

[Flashermac]

Presidential debate: Libya questioner says Obama didn’t answer

 

By Erik Wemple

 

Kerry Ladka stood before President Obama at last night’s town hall-style debate and asked the question that would touch off an onstage verbal brawl and, later, an intense national discussion.

 

Here’s how it went:

 

"Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.

 

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.

 

"Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

 

Was Ladka satisfied with how the president responded? Simply no. “I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily as far as I was concerned,†Ladka tells the Erik Wemple Blog.

Jeez, what about the president’s response could possibly have disappointed Ladka? Was it the fact that he started out with a canned talking point, inserted, perhaps, in the hope that the audience will forget the question?

 

Here’s the first part of Obama’s response:

 

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am."

 

Or was it the next part of the president’s response, when he goes bureaucratic, explaining his three-pronged set of instructions to his staff? And since no response in a presidential debate is complete without an attack on your opponent, Obama was careful to then point out that Romney had politicized the tragedy in Benghazi.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

 

That was all by the way of not answering the question Ladka had placed before him. The president’s clear intent to sidestep Ladka’s inquiry might have prompted activist moderator Candy Crowley to say, Hey, how ‘bout an answer, Mr. President?

 

She didn’t, and the conversation careened toward a clash over whether the president had given the country a timely admission that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

 

President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,†says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him â€more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.†For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror†in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist†designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,†recalls Ladka.

 

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,†Ladka says.

 

Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka:â€I appreciate his private answer more than his public answer,†he says. Spoken like a very genuine undecided voter, Ladka says he wasn’t impressed with Romney’s response to the Libya matter, either.

 

“I like Obama very much but I am very impressed with Romney’s business background,†says Ladka, who’s not saying in which direction he's leaning. Didn’t someone out there say these debates make no difference?

 

Washington Post

[Flashermac]

Obama Pursuing Leakers Sends Warning to Whistle-Blowers

 

 

Eric Holder, attorney general under President Barack Obama, has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.

 

The indictments of six individuals under that spy law have drawn criticism from those who say the president’s crackdown chills dissent, curtails a free press and betrays Obama’s initial promise to “usher in a new era of open government.â€

 

“There’s a problem with prosecutions that don’t distinguish between bad people -- people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money -- and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions,†said Abbe Lowell, attorney for Stephen J. Kim, an intelligence analyst charged under the Act.

 

Lowell, the Washington defense lawyer who has counted as his clients the likes of Jack Abramoff, the former Washington lobbyist, and political figures including former presidential candidate John Edwards, said the Obama administration is using the Espionage Act “like a club†against government employees accused of leaks.

 

The prosecutions, which Obama and the Justice Department have defended on national security grounds, mean that government officials who speak to the media can face financial and professional ruin as they spend years fighting for their reputations, and, in some cases, their freedom.

 

‘Sense of Shame’

 

Kim’s troubles began in September 2009 when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents appeared at the State Department, where he worked as a contract analyst specializing in North Korea. He was questioned about contacts with a reporter about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Eleven months later, Kim was indicted by a grand jury on counts of disclosing classified information and making false statements.

 

“To be accused of doing something against or harmful to U.S. national interest is something I can’t comprehend,†said Kim, 45, who has pleaded not guilty and faces as many as 15 years in jail if convicted. “Your reputation is shot and there is such a sense of shame brought on the family.â€

 

Kim is one of five individuals who have been pursued by Obama’s Justice Department in connection with alleged leaks of classified information to the news media. The Defense Department is pursuing a sixth case against Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of sending documents to the WikiLeaks website.

New Directive

 

The Justice Department said that there are established avenues for government employees to follow if they want to report misdeeds. The agency “does not target whistle-blowers in leak cases or any other cases,†Dean Boyd, a department spokesman, said.

 

“An individual in authorized possession of classified information has no authority or right to unilaterally determine that it should be made public or otherwise disclose it,†he said.

 

On Oct. 10, Obama issued a policy directive to executive- branch agencies extending whistle-blower protections to national security and intelligence employees, who weren’t included in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that passed the U.S. House last month and awaits Senate approval.

 

While the directive seeks to protect those workers from retaliation if they report waste, fraud or abuse through official channels, it “doesn’t include media representatives within the universe of people to whom the whistle-blower can make the disclosure,†said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center of Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. That still gives Obama the option of pursuing prosecutions of intelligence employees who talk to the press, she said.

 

‘Important Step’

 

“The directive is definitely an important step in the right direction, but even if it’s faithfully enforced -- and that’s an open question -- it may not always be enough,†Goitein said. “A whistle-blower’s report could go to the very people who are responsible for the misconduct.â€

 

Lisa O. Monaco, the top Justice Department official in its National Security Division, told lawmakers earlier this year that leaks are damaging to intelligence operations and the country’s national security as a whole.

 

“Virtually all elements of the intelligence community have suffered severe losses due to leaks,†Monaco said in February testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Romney Criticism

 

Still, even as the administration pursues its unprecedented crackdown on government leaks it does not condone, the prosecutions have fallen short of the wishes of lawmakers and other national security experts, who point to books and articles that have shed new light on classified operations.

 

The administration stands accused of anonymously releasing sensitive information to suit its own political purposes. The disclosure of operational details of the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden and attempts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear weapons program triggered the announcement in June of a Justice Department probe of those leaks.

 

That move was criticized by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who called for an independent investigation.

 

“Obama appointees, who are accountable to President Obama’s attorney general, should not be responsible for investigating leaks coming from the Obama White House,†Romney said in a speech at national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in July. “Who in the White House betrayed these secrets?â€

‘Chilling Message’

 

Administration officials are far less forgiving of those who conduct unauthorized contacts with the press.

 

“They want to destroy you personally,†said Thomas Drake, a senior National Security Agency employee prosecuted in 2010 by Obama’s Justice Department under the Espionage Act. The message to government workers seeking to expose waste, fraud and abuse is “see nothing, say nothing, don’t speak out -- otherwise we’ll hammer you,†he said.

 

Drake faced 10 felony counts in connection to an allegation that he shared with classified information with a reporter. He was linked to a report in the Baltimore Sun about inefficiencies and cost over-runs in an NSA surveillance program that was later abandoned.

 

The case against Drake collapsed last year before trial after he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and the government dropped the more serious charges that could have sent him to jail for 35 years.

 

The prosecution was meant to “make me an object lesson and to send the most chilling message,†said Drake, who is adamant that he never handed over any classified information. “I was essentially bankrupted, blacklisted and blackballed. I was turned into damaged goods.â€

 

Security Exception

 

Cases such as Drake’s indicate that Obama doesn’t “see the world of national security as being part of open government,†said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based federal watchdog group. “To me, that’s the most important part that needs an open government ethos foisted upon it.â€

 

Monaco, who is an assistant attorney general, told lawmakers this year that advances in technology play a role in the uptick in prosecutions. Where investigators used to struggle to track down the origins of leaks, they now are able to check phone records, e-mail trails and even “employee physical access or badging records†to trace disclosures, she said.

 

Intelligence agencies are required to report any unauthorized disclosures to the Justice Department, Monaco said. From there, the department, along with the reporting agency, decide whether to open an investigation.

Kim’s Story

 

The South Korea-born Kim emigrated to the U.S. with his parents and sister in 1976. He spoke little English when he arrived and was enrolled in third grade. A naturalized citizen and graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, Kim made a brief stop on Wall Street before heading to Harvard University earn a Master’s degree in National Security. He then went to Yale, where at age 31, he earned his Ph.D in diplomatic and military history.

 

“I decided to forego a lot of other career opportunities to work in the government,†Kim said.

 

Kim took a role as an analyst on a range of East Asian matters, with a specialty in North Korea. He briefed many high ranking officials, including then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

 

In June 2009, Kim is alleged to have discussed how North Korea might react to a United Nations resolution condemning its nuclear tests with reporter James Rosen of Fox News, according to a person familiar with the case. The relationship between Kim and Rosen began when the State Department’s press office arranged a briefing at the request of Kim’s superiors.

 

Allegations

 

Prosecutors say that when asked about his communications with the press by the FBI in their initial meeting in September 2009, Kim lied about a continued relationship with the reporter. That same day, he was told his State Department contract had been terminated for budget reasons, according to court filings.

 

The government alleges Kim’s contacts with Rosen included “efforts to conceal his relationship with the reporter and the secretive nature of their communications speaks volumes about the defendant’s knowledge of who was, and who was not, entitled to receive†information.

 

Kim declined to discuss specifics of his case in the interview in his lawyer’s office in Washington. His efforts to get the charges dismissed were rejected last year by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who in denying the motions to dismiss said that the alleged leak involved a report with a classification level that “could be expected to cause grave damage to the national security†if disclosed.

 

Costly Cases

 

Cases such as Kim’s, which can be drawn out for years as the prosecution and defense teams work with sensitive materials through dozens of filings and status reports can cost upwards of $1 million, according to Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer with the Government Accountability Project who has defended two individuals prosecuted under the law.

 

Kim said his parents sold their home in South Korea to help pay for his defense. His sister has also pitched in and a former college roommate has created a website to publicize his case and raise funds.

 

Radack said the Obama administration crackdown is part of an effort to shut down investigations into the workings of the national-security apparatus.

 

“At first I thought these Espionage Act prosecutions were to curry favor with the national security and intelligence establishments, which saw Obama as weak when he entered office,†Radack said. “It became abundantly clear the more people were indicted, when you read their indictments, that this was a way to create really terrible precedent for ultimately going after journalists.â€

 

Subpoena Fight

 

The Justice Department disputes the claim that it would use the law to go after journalists. Monaco, in her testimony this year, pointed to department regulations that limit investigators’ access to reporters, even when doing so “makes these investigations more challenging.â€

 

Still, those rules haven’t completely insulated journalists. James Risen, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer for the New York Times, was subpoenaed to testify at the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer indicted under the law for allegedly disclosing information about Iran’s nuclear program.

 

Risen and his lawyers have fought the subpoena, arguing in February that the subpoena threatens the role of journalism in serving the public interest.

 

Espionage Act

 

The Espionage Act, signed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917, has until Obama took office been primarily deployed against some of the most damaging double agents in the U.S. history. Those include Aldrich Ames, a Central Intelligence Agency operative convicted in 1994 for spying for Russia, and Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent convicted in 2001 of similar offenses. Both men are serving life sentences without parole in high-security federal prisons.

 

The law also prohibits the unlawful disclosure of national defense information to those not entitled to receive it -- a provision that defense lawyers say is being abused by Obama’s prosecutors.

 

“I campaigned for him, contributed to him, voted for him and believed him,†said Radack of Obama. “For someone who pledged to protect and defend whistle-blowers, he certainly has not even remained neutral, he’s affirmatively set us back really, really far.â€

 

Disclosure Provision

 

The Justice Department has used the disclosure provision to pursue five cases against government officials for allegedly sharing classified information with members of the news media. In 2009, former FBI linguist Shamai Leibowitz was indicted for handing over transcripts of government wiretaps of the Israeli embassy in Washington to a blogger. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 months in prison.

 

Obama also continued the George W. Bush administration’s investigation of Drake, the NSA employee.

 

“It’s important to understand what’s going on in this country -- the government has criminalized whistle-blowing,†said Drake, 55, who lost his $155,000-a-year NSA job in 2008. He now works as a wage-grade employee at an Apple store in a Washington suburb to support his family.

 

The Justice Department also continues to pursue Sterling, the former CIA officer, and John Kiriakou, an intelligence official who wrote a book detailing the illegal use of waterboarding by the CIA. Kiriakou is also accused of disclosing the identity of a CIA analyst to reporters.

 

Two Scandals

 

“The two biggest scandals of the Bush administration in terms of constitutional violations was the use of torture, and renditions, and secret surveillance -- and the only two people to date who have been charged in connection with those scandals are myself and John Kiriakou,†Drake said. “That should tell you something about how hard the Obama administration is going to protect those programs.â€

 

The Espionage Act charges against Drake were dropped last year, with the defendant accepting a minor penalty for exceeding the authorized use of a computer. The Justice Department prosecutors were excoriated by U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett for the more than two-year delay between the first search of Drake’s home and the indictment, as well as the decision to drop the most serious charges days before the case was scheduled to go to trial.

 

Judge’s Rebuke

 

“I find it extraordinary in this case for an individual’s home to be searched in November of 2008, for the government to have no explanation for a two-year delay, not a two and a half year delay, for him to be indicted in April of 2010, and then over a year later, on the eve of the trial, in June of 2011, the government says, whoops, we dropped the whole case,†Bennett said at Drake’s July 2011 sentencing, according to a court transcript.

 

Manning, the analyst who allegedly disclosed hundreds of thousands of confidential government documents to WikiLeaks, faces court-martial under the espionage law.

 

The president’s openness pledge is also undermined by a recent Bloomberg News analysis, which showed that 19 of 20 cabinet-level agencies disobeyed the Freedom of Information Act requiring the disclosure of public documents. In all, just eight of the 57 federal agencies met Bloomberg’s FOIA requests for top officials’ travel costs within the 20-day window required by the Act.

 

The White House disputes the notion that the president hasn’t kept his promise of transparency.

 

“While creating a more open government requires sustained effort, our continued efforts seek to promote accountability, provide people with useful information and harness the dispersed knowledge of the American people,†White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in an e-mailed statement.

 

Obama Meeting

 

In March last year, Obama met with five open-government advocates in the Oval Office. In the session, Brian of the Project on Government Oversight told Obama that the leak prosecutions were undermining his legacy.

 

“The president shifted in his seat and leaned forward. He said he wanted to engage on this topic because this may be where we have some differences,†Brian wrote in a March 29, 2011 POGO blog post. “He said he doesn’t want to protect the people who leak to the media war plans that could impact the troops.â€

 

Today, Kim rarely sees his South Korean-born wife, who spends time largely in her native country with her parents. Without any security clearances, Kim is restricted to working on non-classified projects for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He said that most of his colleagues have abandoned him, refusing to return phone calls or letting him know that for professional reasons they’d rather he not pick up the phone. The case has left him isolated personally and professionally.

 

‘Like a Disease’

 

“I’m like a disease,†Kim said.

 

Because of preliminary legal wrangling, Kim’s case is unlikely to make it to court before the end of the year, according to a joint status report filed on Aug. 31.

 

Sitting in his lawyer’s office a few blocks away from the State Department where he once worked, Kim acknowledges that while he’s had bad days in the past 16 months, he has recognized that in the wake of his personal and financial woes, he may be the only person that can keep himself afloat.

 

“There was one time at home, one time, when I screamed out loud, when I yelled and I cried. The resentment was so deep,†Kim said. “But ever since then I haven’t shed another tear because if I break down, everything breaks down.â€

 

The Kim case is U.S. v. Kim, 10cr00225, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington).

 

 

 

My link

[Flashermac]

Which poll to believe?

 

 

GALLUP: Mitt Romney Now Has A Gigantic 6-Point Lead Over Obama

 

 

Republican nominee Mitt Romney took his biggest lead yet in today's Gallup daily tracking poll, expanding his lead over President Barack Obama to an astounding 6 points among likely voters.

 

Today's results reflect polling from last Wednesday through yesterday, so there is no data in the aftermath of last night's debate, which went much better for the president.

 

But Romney also took a 2-point lead among registered voters, a measure that has been more favorable to the president in Gallup's polling. That means Romney has swung the race 7 points in that measure — before the first debate, Obama led Romney by 5 points among registered voters.

 

On Tuesday, Romney led Obama 50-46 among likely voters, hitting the crucial 50-percent mark for the first time in the race.

 

Obama's approval rating stayed at 49 percent, which is below the "safe" 50 percent threshold for an incumbent's re-election.

 

By Gallup's historical standards, it would take a truly historical comeback at this point for Obama. Since Gallup started tracking in 1936, the only eventual president to mount a comeback down 6 points on Oct. 17 was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, however, was behind 6 points among registered voters.

 

 

The only poll that counts is the one on 6 November (and in the back rooms afterwards).

[Steve]

Cutting through the rhetoric and bullshit i personally dont feel Romney has a problem with hiring and promoting women. I may even extend that to Blacks. May..lol. What i also believe is that he wants to restrict a womans reproductive rights as well as make it easier for companies to discriminate under the guise of a free market.

I think his personal faith is much in line with fundamentals and he believes its right to be pro life as a law.

 

I think Obama has been strongest in foreign policy and this nitpicking on Libya is bullshit. He has a great foreign policy record. There is always something you can criticize of any Presidents foreign policy. Name me a President you believe had a great foreign policy record in the modern era and I guarantee i could fibd something.

 

Obama has issues but its not foreign policy. My biggest ussue with Obama is something the Republicans cant exploit because they are just as bad if not worse and that is the corrosion of our civil liberties.

 

Obama could have done better with the economy but not too much better. We are forgetting that we were damn close to the precipice of collapse. Absolutely no one is gonna fix that in one term. Stopping the bleeding and getting it to bottom out is the best anyone could do. Doing that without debt is impossible. I firmly believe if the Republicans had been in charge they would have sold it as a 6-8 year turnaround plan to buy time.

 

Had McCain won we would have been worse off i believe. Also what compounded Obama's problems was the Republicans who had a strategy of deny the President any “wins†even if we agree with it. When he worked with them and gave them anything They painted him as weak. They were gonna fck Obama over at the expense of the nation if need be because they would fix it once they got back the White House.

 

I truly believe that. I have been utterly disappointed in the party. I havent supported them since I supported Bush in '00.