A man wearing an Afghan police uniform killed two NATO [British] troops in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, the international military alliance said.
The assault appeared to the be the latest in a string of insider attacks that have threatened to sever the partnership between international troops and the Afghan forces they are trying to train to take over responsibility for the country's security...
At least 53 international troops have been killed in attacks by Afghan soldiers or police this year...
The surge in insider attacks is throwing doubt on the capability of the Afghan security forces to take over from international troops ahead of a planned handover to the Afghans in 2014...
Since the end of September - when the Obama administration lifted a phony, fake and short-lived suspension of training of Afgan forces - roughly eight coalition troops have been killed by their supposed Afghan allies.
The phony, short-lived suspension of training of Afgan forces had been implemented, last month, after U.S. and NATO officials acknowledged that, in the rush to implement the President's politically calculated troop withdrawal from Afghanistan [by the end of 2014] and the transfer of Afghanistan’s security to Afghan forces by the middle of 2013, Afghan troops were not properly vetted, which resulted in a spike in Green-on-Blue attacks and an unabated stream of NATO casualties - most of them Americans - at the hands of their supposed Afghan allies. A few weeks later, the administration announced the resumption of training of Afghan forces.
Obama's timetable must be implemented according to schedule, even if it means a weak vetting of Afghan forces and a continuous stream of U.S. and NATO casualties, because, as the Politician-in-Chief so eloquently explained, "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party"....
U.S. and NATO officials acknowledged last month that, in the rush to implement the President's politically calculated troop withdrawal from Afghanistan [by the end of 2014] and the transfer of Afghanistan’s security to Afghan forces by the middle of 2013, Afghan troops were not properly vetted, which resulted in the deaths of 45 coalition members [between January and August of 2012] - most of them Americans - at the hands of their supposed Afghan allies. Hence, on September 1, 2012, the Obama administration announced the suspension of training for all new Afghan recruits.
However, the suspension was short-lived, for ultimately the President's politically calculated timetable takes precedence over the lives and well-being of our armed forces. Hence, on September 27, the administration announced the resumption of training of Afghan forces. And, a few days later, an Afghan solider turned his gun on two U.S. soldiers. What's more, at least 52 coalition troops have been killed so far this year by Afghan soldiers. And, on Thursday, two U.S. soldiers were killed by a man wearing an Afghan police uniform.
The phony short-lived suspension was just a big joke, a hoax; clearly, Afghan forces are still not being properly vetted.
I noted last month that despite the fact that insider attacks in Afghanistan have increased dramatically under President Obama's watch, he only recently acknowledged the problem after he was confronted on the issue by members of the White House Press pool, who whimsically decided to put aside their liberal bias for a day.
In May of this year, I noted that, contrary to President Obama's assertion that the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan had been broken as a result of his [failed] policies, both Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees, upon returning from from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, asserted that the Taliban has grown stronger over the last three years, and that they are stronger now than they were before Obama announced his 18 month troop surge, while simultaneously announcing - and telegraphing - to the Taliban - his timetable for withdrawal.
The brief suspension of training for Afghan recruits was just another one of Obama's hoaxes; and so was the troop surge in Afghanistan.
Obama's Presidency is one big hoax. But sadly, his ability to pull the wool over the eyes of a large part of the U.S. electorate is neither a hoax, nor a laughing matter, unless you happen to be Obama - or Biden - then it is pretty funny, indeed....
President Obama visited the polling station at the Martin Luther King Community Center in his hometown of Chicago on Thursday to cast an early vote for the 2012 Presidential election.
But the purportedly tech savvy President appeared to be befuddled by an ordinary, run-of-the-mill voting machine. Ultimately, an employee at the polling station came to the rescue, as he guided the President through the step-by-step process of using the typical, every-day, run-of-the-mill voting machine.
Last month, the President borrowed an iPhone from one his aides, but he couldn't figure out how to use the device.
"It's not clear he knows how to dial on an iPhone," a pool reporter noted as he observed the President grappling with the 21st century device.
The pool reporter then noted that Mr. Obama "had a little more trouble dialing."
Later on, when the President's call failed to go through, he faulted the owner of the phone for having an insufficient cell phone plan. Heh.....
A campaign staffer then called out to Obama, "I'll give you my phone, call my wife."
"I'll call her and tell her that you're messing around here in the office, giving the president ....," Mr. Obama said, his voice tailing off.
President Obama visited the polling station at the Martin Luther King Community Center in his hometown of Chicago on Thursday to cast an early vote for President. After casting his ballot, the President delivered a speech to voters at the polling station [and to any other American who was watching the live feed]. He also told voters that he would shake their hands after they were done casting their ballot.
WLS Chicago is reporting that officials in Springfield Illinois are still complaining about an unpaid bill from a 2008 Obama campaign rally.
In February, NBC Chicago reported that the Obama campaign refused to pay the city of Springfield, Illinois $55,000 for the cost of providing police protection during a 2008 campaign event.
City Alderman Frank Edwards said that, “They contacted the DNC. They contacted the Obama campaign," but no one wanted to pay.
To try and cut through the clutter Edwards [wrote a letter to the President and asked him] to intercede. There was no immediate response.
In July, the city of Newport Beach, California also complained about a $35,000 unpaid bill the Obama campaign owes the city for providing police protection during a February, 2012 campaign rally.
City officials noted that Mitt Romney's campaign promptly paid a bill of $10,441 for his June fundraiser.
Indeed, if there is one thing that Romney has made clear during this election cycle it is that the U.S., under Obama, has accrued huge debts, and that American people have been left to pay the bills. Heh....
Nevertheless, WLS Chicago is reporting that Obama is still refusing to pay his $55,000 bill to the city of Springfield.
Springfield Alderman Frank Edwards tells WLS "If you're going to go after your citizens for bills they owe you then everybody's in. And that's just kind of the way I look at it. I think if the Obama campaign owes us money they ought to pay it."
Edwards says the Obama campaign has given him and other Springfield officials the runaround when they have asked to be paid what is owed. He also says with Obama planning to hold his election night rally next month at McCormick Place in Chicago, he would advise Mayor Rahm Emanuel to demand all payments upfront, for any costs Chicago taxpayers might incur:
"That's exactly what I'd do. It would be no different than if you, a private individual, went and had an event somewhere and you didn't pay your bill, you didn't pay your catering bill, you didn't pay the rental hall. Anybody that goes to rent you a facility is going to be a little leery of you because you haven't paid your bill. I'd be especially leery now because if he doesn't win re-election his campaign's gonna have debt. And you're gonna be at the bottom of the pile."
The President has plenty of money at hand to pay up his own personal campaign debts; he should pay his bills. But sadly, the U.S. does not sufficient funds to pay up the huge debt that has been accrued from Obama's government spending sprees.
Obama is a wreckless spender, who refuses to pay his own personal debts, and yet, while he's throwing taxpayer dollars down the incinerator, he tells the American people that they need to stop spending so lavishly. Heh...
During the Presidential debate on Monday, Barack Obama resorted to his usual style of rhetoric to evade scrutiny of his disastrous policies on Iran and Syria. However, he can't hide the fact, that from day one, ever since he rose to national prominence, he has sought to befriend the Syrian and Iranian regimes, despite their atrocious and despicable nature.
The President's voice was nowhere to be heard, in 2009, during the post election demonstrations in Iran, much to the chagrin of the Iranian protesters. And, despite his claims to the contrary, Obama sent two letters to the Supreme leader of Iran, in which he made some shocking concessions and also offered to conduct negotiations with the despotic regime.
In 2010, Obama returned the U.S. ambassador to Syria; the ambassador had been recalled by President Bush after the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Harri.
Moreover, in July of 2009, the Obama administration announced a decision to ease sanctions on Syria.
And who can forget Obama's incredibly ridiculous statement, during the Democratic Presidential debate, in 2007, when he was asked if he'd be willing to negotiate with the leaders of Iran, Syria etc.
Obama replied: "I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."
The Iranian and Syrian regimes "are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing" Iraq and the region??? Are you kidding me?
Unbelievable!
And, let's not forget some of Joe Biden's preposterous statements on Iran.
In October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Biden was quoted as telling committee staffers, during a meeting, "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran."
[Biden] looks around the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.
The staffers sit in stunned silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: "I think they'd send it back." Then another aide speaks up delicately: "The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt."
World Net Daily reported in 2005:
Last year, Biden held a high-level, 90-minute meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, which took place in a lounge in full view of reporters during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The U.S. has had no official relations with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution...
Biden reportedly told Kharrazi he is... urging his own government to rethink its positions [towards Iran].
Newsmax reported in 2008:
Sen. Barack Obama and his newly-picked running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, may have sparred during the primaries. But on one issue they are firmly united: the need to forge closer ties to the government of Iran.
Kaveh Mohseni, a spokesman for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, calls Biden “a great friend of the mullahs.”
He notes that Biden’s election campaigns “have been financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network,” a loosely-knit group of wealthy Iranian-American businessmen and women seeking to end the U.S. trade embargo on Iran.
“In exchange, the senator does his best to aid the mullahs,” Mohseni argues.
Biden’s ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups are no secret. But so far, the elite media has avoided even mentioning the subject....
At a March 2002 conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the American-Iranian Council (AIC), Biden made the case for closer U.S. ties to the government of Iran. “I believe than an improved relationship with Iran is in the naked self-interest of the United States of America," Biden said...
[Biden's] decision to address the American-Iranian Council and other pro-Tehran groups has angered many Iranian-Americans.
“Biden has been too cozy with the supporters of the Iranian regime, which is anti-American, anti-Iranian, and has a horrendous human rights record,” said Sardar Haddad, an Iranian pro-democracy activist based in Texas.
The American-Iranian Council was founded by Hoosang Amirahmadi, a Rutgers University professor of urban studies who tried to run for president of the Islamic Republic in 2005.
Funded in part by oil giant CONOCO, which hoped to secure lucrative oil contracts, AIC has lobbied consistently to get U.S. trade sanctions on Iran eliminated.
In a recent interview with a popular Persian-language netzine, run by a leader of the Revolutionary Guards, Amirahmadi complained that he wasn’t getting enough credit for lobbying Washington.
Biden hasn’t shied from asking wealthy Iranian-Americans with known sympathies for the Tehran regime for campaign cash.
When Iranian-American pro-democracy activists learned that Biden planned to attend a fundraiser organized on his behalf by an Iranian Muslim charity in California, they phoned his U.S. Senate office to warn him about the group’s pro-Tehran sympathies.
But the Delaware Democrat swept aside their concerns and attended the Feb. 19, 2002, event at the California home of Dr. Sadegh Namazi-Khah, which brought in an estimated $30,000 for his U.S. Senate re-election campaign. ...
Namazi-Khah and other IMAN board members told me that the idea for the fundraiser came from Biden, who apparently learned about the group after attending an earlier event sponsored by the AIC.
Both Namazi-Khah and Movaghar also belong to the Board of the American-Iranian Council, the Washington, DC-based lobbying group pressing for an end to U.S. sanctions on Iran...
Another key Biden contributor is Hassan Nemazee, a New York money-manager... Nemazee... recently set up the Iranian-American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) along with a group of Silicon Valley billionaires, many of whom have close ties to the Iranian regime.
Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate “highlights the need to really investigate the web of Iranian influence in the United States,” Iranian-American political analyst Hassan Daioleslam told Newsmax.
“What you have here is a group of people who have been working together through different groups and organizations for the past ten years” to promote the interests of the Iranian regime.
“It’s deeply troubling to have a vice-presidential candidate raise funds from people whose ties to the Iranian regime raise such serious questions,” Daioleslam said.
In 2008, an Iranian activist, commenting on the Pajamas Media website, stated as follows:
Amir Ahamadi, though a professor at Rutgers University, is the founder of a rather objectionable organization called the American Iranian Council (AIC) - which has some of the shadiest characters who were involved in the oil-for-food scandal on the various boards.
Amir-Ahmadi is an admitted supporter of the regime in Tehran and goes back and forth to Iran to meet with the Supreme Leader of the Khomeinist regime, Khamenei himself, as well as... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Amir-Ahmadi in fact nominated himself for president of Iran in 2005...
Mr. Biden has been flown to various events and lodged at the most expensive hotels by Mr. Amir-Ahamdi and his group in order to promote the... normalization of relations with a regime that continues to execute innocent Iranians of all ages, sexes, creeds, religions and backgrounds. Mr. Biden is the last person who I as an Democrat would nominate as a vice president, all partisan sentimentality aside...
Sen Biden's willingness to go to attend fundraisers (for his senatorial re-election) at the houses of rather questionable millionaire Iranians in Bel Air, who are founders of the Islamic Faith (Iman) Foundation and known to have deep ties with the Mullahs... reigning over Iran, is disconcerting to say the least...
Sen. Biden has refused to meet with Iranians opposed to the Mullahcracy in Iran lest they take him to task for his connections to the Qom-on-Bel air Iranians.
Not one Iranian that I know of, who is against dialoguing with the Mullahs has ever been bestowed an audience with this foreign policy maven of a Senator. Mr. Biden’s “discrete” meetings with various envoys of the Mullahcracy, in European cities, in the presence of disreputable Mullah-supporting members of the European Parliament, is also well-known among us Iranians who do have very decent proposals which Mr. Biden has recalcitrantly refused to consider.
In 2008, I noted that Biden's views on Iran, no doubt, played at least a partial role in Obama's decision to tap him as his running mate.
President Obama has added another debate partner to help him prepare for the final presidential debate on Monday, primarily on issues relating to Iran's nuclear program. [The final debate will focus on foreign policy.] The New York Times on Saturday joined forces with the President, walking with him arm in arm and helping him spew out his latest talking points in an effort to marginalize criticism of his policies on Iran, while trying to put Mitt Romney on the defensive.
Republican Vice Presidential candidate, congressman Paul Ryan, has noted on several occasions that Mr. Obama, from the onset of his Presidency, deliberately dragged his feet on imposing stiff sanctions on Iran. And, the strong sanctions, that have been imposed in recent months, Mr. Ryan noted, have come only as a result of pressure from congress.
[A couple of examples of Obama's foot dragging on Iran sanctions can be gleaned here and here. Hopefully, I'll get around to writing a more comprehensive post on Obama's foot dragging on Iranian sanctions and his policy of appeasement with Iran.]
Obama's inability to get Russia to play along with his fictional "reset button" has also played a role in the painfully slow sanctions process: Bear in mind what then-Russian President Dimitry Medvedev said in a statement after meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in November of 2010.
Medvedev issued a statement, saying "Russia seeks to improve its political, economic and even military ties with Iran."
He added that "following the" adoption of the UN "sanctions resolution" certain countries "sought to intensify sanctions against Iran, to which Russia strongly opposed and took stances against it."
Medvedev also proposed that Russia and Iran adopt a joint stance in the international forums.
Likewise, Ahmadinejad issued a statement saying, "The era of bullying and sanctions is over. “[We] believe that in the current global conditions, if Iran and Russia stand together, the enemies will fail in their plots against Iran, Russia and the region."
And indeed, the Obama administration, on several occasions, admitted that it could not get Russia to agree on tightening U.N. sanctions on Iran.
But, Obama's new prep partner, the New York Times, is now offering its readers some of Obama's latest talking points on Iran. The talking points appear to be contradictory. However, the ultimate goal of the New York Times is to put Romney on the defensive during Monday's debate - and that's all that really matters.
"The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials..."
Which raises the question: If the Obama administration and the Iranian regime have agreed to talk with one another, why haven't they begun the process? Who's stopping them?
Don't worry, the Times takes care of that dilemma.
"Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating."
Nice and smooth... Good job, New York Times!
The Times' debate prep against Romney continues:
News of the agreement — a result of intense, SECRET exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.
SECRET exchanges? Are you kidding?
These exchanges have been well-known for quite some time.
The Obama administration is leaning toward making a major diplomatic overture to Iran before the country's presidential elections in June, possibly in the form of a letter from President Obama to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to two senior European diplomats who have met in recent weeks with key State Department officials.
The letter would be aimed at initiating talks over the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's role in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity...
Earlier this week, State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood told reporters: "We have offered our hand to the government of Iran, and we hope to be able to engage this government on a whole range of issues...."
US officials have already begun testing the waters of engagement. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently announced that Iran would be invited to an upcoming multinational conference on Afghanistan, and Iranian officials have reportedly signaled that they will consider attending.
However, some European officials have long warned that a major gesture toward Iran before the June presidential election risks influencing its outcome, perhaps improving the chances of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, running for re-election.
No problem, Obama would never meddle in Iran's internal affairs - right? Just ask Obama..., and the Iranian's who protested the election results in Iran.
Likewise, the Washington Times reported in June of 2009 that, prior to the disputed presidential election in Iran, "the Obama administration sent a letter to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself...
"The letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations” and a resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program...
"The letter was given to the Iranian Foreign Ministry by a representative of the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Iran...
"Asked about the letter, the Swiss ambassador to Washington, Urs Ziswiller, told The Times, 'I cannot comment on that.' "...
Obama also sent a second letter to Khamenei - in the beginning of 2012 or the end of 2011- in which he called for direct talks with the Iranian regime.
Iranian lawmaker Ali Motahhari said that President Obama, in the second letter to Khamenei, "announced readiness for negotiation" and talked about facilitating friendship with the Iranian regime.
Iranian lawmaker Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi said that Obama, in his letter, "mentioned cooperation and negotiation... and stated... that [the US] will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Ebrahimi asserted that, “Obama’s letter indicates that the United States has become afraid of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s might..., and therefore, he has softened his tone when speaking about the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Mr. Ebrahimi added that the Swiss ambassador to Iran, Livia Leu Agosti, who delivered the second letter to Khamenei, "quoted the US president as saying 'we recognize your nuclear rights' ".
Mr. Ebrahimi also said that the Swiss ambassador had relayed a message from Obama saying: "I didn't want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision."
Contrary to the Time's assertion, these exchanges, between Obama and the Iranian regime, were not a secret, thanks to the Iranians who were kind enough to spill the beans.....
The New York Times, in its debate prep, and, as part of its efforts to put Mitt Romney on the defensive, goes on to say that
News of the agreement has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions... It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran...
However, the New York Times is acutely aware that, while news of an agreement between Obama and the Mullahs may put Romney on the defensive during the debate and might help Obama garner some additional votes, it could also turn off many voters who believe that, without a prior commitment from the Mullahs to dismantle their nuclear program, talking with Iran would be counterproductive. Hence, although the Times stated at the onset that, "The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials...", it later issued the following contradictory statement from White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor:
“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections," said Vietor. He added, however, that the administration was open to such talks, and has “said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”...
And thus, the New York Times and Obama, working in unison, managed to cover all of the contradictory angles in one swoop, without missing a single beat!
Clearly Obama has an excellent debate partner in the New York Times; a debate partner with similar rhetorical skills.
Now, if he could only get the Grey Lady to MODERATE the debate, THAT would be the icing on the cake!
During the Presidential debate on Tuesday, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were asked the following question:
"In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"
Mr. Romney replied that, when he was elected governor of Massachusetts, he started putting together a cabinet and noticed that all the applicants were men.
"And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?', and they brought us whole binders full of women."
Romney added: "I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America."
Mr. Obama also talked about the need to create more equality in the workforce. However, a 2008 report revealed that female employees working for then-Sen. Obama made 83 cents for every dollar that the male employees were making. Moreover, a 2011 report revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18% less than male employees.
Mr. Obama also has a strange, condescending style of communicating with women: In 2008, while speaking to two female reporters - perfect strangers - he referred to them as "sweeties".
During the Presidential debate on Tuesday, President Obama was asked the following question by a member of the audience:
"Your Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Sec. Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?"
Actually, Mr. Chu advocated raising gas prices here in the U.S. to the extremely high levels of European gas prices.
The higher the price of gasoline, the easier it is for the Left to force the American people into seeking out, and funding, alternative sources of energy.
Both Sec. Chu and President Obama have previously been asked about the advantages of having higher gas prices.
Click here or click the link in the video below to watch those discussions.
During the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday, and on various occasions, Vice President Biden has said that he always says what he means.
There is absolutely no question that the Vice President is a man of extreme integrity, who always speaks the truth...., like the time he said he had an uncle who was a coal miner..., and like the time he said that, under President Obama, "we have gone from hemorrhaging in debt to beginning to grab hold of the debt.".... Joe Biden, like his running mate, Barack Obama, is an incredibly honest individual. No doubt about it!
A man with such impeccable integrity, like the Vice President, should be Time Magazine's "Person of the Year", in my humble opinion.....
During the Vice Presidential debate Thursday night, Vice President Joe Biden was asked about the urgent requests that were made for more diplomatic security in Libya prior to the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four U.S. diplomats in Benghazi last month.
"We weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again," said Biden, who, like his esteemed running mate, Barack Obama, is widely renowned as a straight, honest politician who says what he means, means what he says, and always tells the unvarnished truth - a man of impeccable integrity.
Two former security officers, Eric Nordstrom and Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, recently testified before congress that requests for more diplomatic security in Libya had been made prior to last month's fatal terrorist attack. But the Vice President, like his running mate, Barack Obama, apparently believes that upright individuals, the likes of Obama and Biden, can lie to their hearts' content with a clear conscience, and with the full support of their loyal constituents and admirers.
"I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care.... I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here!" Barack Obama in an interivew with the New York Times - April 2009
