Aftermath

Circumstances
In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were “Al Qaeda-leaning,” according to American and European officials.
...
In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, as Republicans, led by their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, have sought to lay blame for the attack on President Obama, who they argued had insufficiently protected American lives there.
...
Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack’s aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials. (NYT, 10/29/2012)

Forgive our cynicism, but the New York Times chooses the day after Hurricane Sandy hits to weigh in with another front page story about Benghazi. (How can the Republicans say that we didn't give the story attention....?) The conclusion? The Repubs got nothing!

Of course, the Times ignores the fact that there are two Benghazi stories. The first concerns the question of whether the administration provided the proper security for our diplomats given the known threats. (Absolved!)  The second story is the constantly changing account of what the administration knew and when they knew it. One thing is certain. The Liberal media is going to look long and hard at that...after the election.


Typical
The ad from Mitt Romney showed up on televisions here early Saturday morning without the usual public announcement that both campaigns typically use to herald their latest commercials: Chrysler, a bailout recipient, is going to begin producing Jeeps in China, an announcer says, leaving the misleading impression that the move would come at the expense of jobs here.

And so began the latest, and perhaps most important, attempt by Mitt Romney to wrest Ohio into his column. His effort to do so is now intently focused, at times including statements that stretch or ignore the facts, on knocking down what is perhaps the most important component of President Obama’s appeal to blue-collar voters in Ohio and across the industrial Midwest: the success of the president’s 2009 auto bailout. (NYT, 10/29/2012)

Op-ed piece in the New York Times? No! This is a regular old news story!


The Struggle
One year after the company's collapse because of Mr. Corzine's trading bets on European sovereign debt, officials have found money to cover most of the estimated $1.6 billion that belonged to customers but was used by MF Global to meet its financial obligations. Investigators are trying to decide who is to blame for misusing the money.

And the 65-year-old Mr. Corzine is struggling to figure out what comes next for himself, according to friends and former coworkers. (WSJ, 10/29/2012)

Uh...how about jail?


Estimates
This brings us to Al Gore.  Earlier this month the Washington Post's Carol Leonnig reported that the former vice president's wealth is today estimated at $100 million, up from less than $2 million when he left government service on a salary of $181,400. How did he make this kind of money? It wasn't his share of the Nobel Peace Prize. Nor was it the book and movie proceeds from "An Inconvenient Truth."

Instead, as Ms. Leonnig reports, "Fourteen green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of President Obama's historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money." (Bret Stephens, WSJ, 10/29/2012)

Which explains why Al Gore is such a relentless champion of all things green. Liberals who chanted "Halliburton" every time that Dick Cheney's name was spoken are now strangely silent.


Causal
But somewhere between the campaign and the White House itself, Obama got lost. It turned out he had no cause at all. Expanding health insurance was Hillary Clinton’s longtime goal, and even after Obama adopted it, he never argued for it with any fervor. In an unfairly mocked campaign speech, he promised to slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. But when he took office, climate change was abandoned — too much trouble, too much opposition. His eloquence, it turned out, was reserved for campaigning.

Obama never espoused a cause bigger than his own political survival. (Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 10/29/2012)

We probably disagree with Cohen about 99% of the time, but we give him credit here for a brutally honest analysis of Obama. He also has the guts to call out the Left who will brook no dissenters from within:

A single critical column from me during the campaign triggered a fusillade of invective. The famous and esteemed told me off. I was the tool of right-wing haters, a dope of a dupe.

Wow!