The Tragic Embassy Attacks in Libya Are The Iranian Style Crisis Immoral Mitt Romney Was Hoping For

The Tragic Embassy Attacks in Libya Are The Iranian Style Crisis Immoral Mitt Romney Was Hoping For

Mitt will work to take advantage of an "opportunity" of American's suffering during a crisis?
   
    This guy is a real piece of work and one has to ask, what loyalty does he have to America? How about none. His only loyalty is to himself and his bank account. What a disgusting tool.

- In the video, Romney is caught hoping for an Iran hostage type situation to help propel him into the White House. Is it any surprise that he has tried to make political hay out of the Benghazi terror attacks?
   
        As you watch the video, notice the man (is that a British accent?) asking Romney how he can “duplicate” an Iran hostage type scenario. Instead of dismissing the question as going against American interests, Romney agrees that the strategy would be beneficial. The entire video is worth a listen but at the end, Romney says, “if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to take advantage of the opportunity.”

   Transcript courtesy of kossack rovertheoctopus and Mother Jones:

Audience member: If you get the call as president, and you had hostages…Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement, even before he became, was actually sworn in—
   
        Romney: Yeah—
   
        Audience member: the hostages were released—
   
        Romney: on the day of his inauguration, yeah.
   
        Audience member: So my question is, really, how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?
   
        Romney: Ohhhh. [A few chuckles in audience.] I'm gonna ask you, how do I duplicate that scenario.
   
        Audience member: I think that had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan would do something to really get them out. In other words [unintelligible]…and that's why I'm suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would predict and I think that's something that could possibly resonate very well with American Republican voters.
   
        Romney: I appreciate the idea. I can't—one of the other things that's frustrating to me is that at a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions that I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This president's failure to put in place a status forces agreement allowing 10-20,000 troops to stay in Iraq? Unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we have hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean that's—that was—that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today if you said, "We got Iran to agree to stand down a nuclear weapon," they'd go hold on. It's really a, but…by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

Much like they exploited 9-11 for political gain - election cycles in 2004/2006/2008 all used ads that either implied or outright said if you do not vote for conservative wackos you'll all die. Romney and conservatives who are trying to turn the tragedy of the Libyan embassy deaths into their substitute for an Iranian hostage crisis are not concerned about the morbid and shameless nature of their unfounded attacks, they're smiling from ear to ear at the great timing of the deaths so they can exploit for for political gain.

Jen Rubin: The Beltway's Waldorf and Statler

The Washington Post writer's attack on Hillary Clinton over Benghazi manages to get everything wrong about feminism in less than 100 characters.


Secretary Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the situation in Benghazi on Monday, noting to the press that the “president and the vice-president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals.” There are a number of appropriate reactions this statement. One could assume it’s a bit of politicking during election season, an attempt to take the heat off the president and help his re-election bid. One could see it as a diplomatic move, aimed at quelling tensions in the Middle East. One could take it at face value. Or, one could lose her ever-loving mind and accuse Clinton of betraying feminism.

The last option was the one chosen by WaPo's Jennifer Rubin, whose writing has become synonymous with “mindless partisan bleating.”

That is some far fetched partisan twisted logic to exploit Benghazi to go after women's rights.

Where Does Mitt Romney Stand on Veterans Issues? He'll Get Back To You When He Gets Around To Considering Them

Where Does Mitt Romney Stand on Veterans Issues? He'll Get Back To You When He Gets Around To Considering Them

President Obama announced today at Ft. Stewart in Georgia that he will sign an executive order to protect veterans, members of the military and their families from deceptive and predatory marketing practices by some for-profit higher educational institutions.

Mitt Romney’s campaign tried to get out front of the news today by issuing press releases suggesting that the president hasn’t done enough for the nation’s veterans. Campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul said:

    “Under President Obama, all Americans have suffered from one of the worst job markets in recorded history — and our nation’s veterans have been among the hardest hit. With more than twelve percent of our most recent veterans struggling to find work and nearly a million veterans unemployed, it’s clear that we need to do more to grow our economy and ensure that those who fight for America can find a job when they return home.”

Saul didn’t expand on the “do more” part of her critique. The other press release titled “Mitt Romney Will Give Veterans A Chance to Find Good Jobs” links to a page on the campaign website that makes no mention of any plan for veterans.

And it appears that no plan exists on Romney’s campaign website to address various issues affecting the U.S. military — for example, veterans’ health care and unemployment or, as Obama addressed today, servicemembers’ education. The “Issues” page lists 23 separate issues Mitt Romney has apparently chosen to focus on during his presidential campaign and none is “Veterans” or “Military.”

It seems like the only outline of any plan Romney has for veterans is to, as he said in a speech to the VFW last August, use “billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy from the defense budget” and “spend it to ensure that veterans have the care they deserve.” He mentioned no specifics.

Romney announced a Veterans Policy Advisory group back in October to “help to formulate policies that will ensure America keeps its commitments” to veterans but it is unclear what those policies are.

Romney has even praised President Obama’s veterans initiative to encourage companies to hire veterans, saying last November that “it’s a good idea.”

On Veterans Day last year, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee did float a plan to privatize the veterans health care system but he was forced to back away from the proposal after swift condemnation from veterans groups.

Romney has also said he supports Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget proposal. That budget “would cut $11 billion from veterans spending.”

ThinkProgress asked the Romney campaign if the former Massachusetts governor has a detailed plan to address veterans issues but it did not respond before this post was published.

In a primary season that has lasted a year and included over 30 debates and Romney thinks veterans are so important that he will come up with a veterans policy some day.

Digby takes a look at how the no nothing/do nothing little bug named John McCain has exploited war anytime he thinks such exploitation will get him votes - The maverick has a fainting spell

Back in 2010, Rep. Darrell Issa called Obama one of the most corrupt presidents in history, and pledged to investigate his administration. After a year’s worth of hearings and investigations, Issa has come out empty-handed. Of course, when has lack of proof stopped anyone from making ridiculous accusations in politics?

Conservative Republicans and Gas Prices - A Poltical Movement That Lies Constantly is a Movement That Hates Their Country

Conservative Republicans and Gas Prices - A Political Movement That Lies Constantly is a Movement That Hates Their Country. Conservatives hate freedom so it logically follows they hate the USA. They're good at waving flags, they suck at living up to the ideals that flag represents. We don't need flag waving fake patriots, we need good Americans capable of rational thinking about the future of the nation.

The oil industry isn't drilling on leases for millions of acres of land that could be producing energy.

Yet despite claims from several lawmakers, it doesn't appear this is part of a nefarious plan to drive up gas prices or reap huge profits by companies like Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), BP (BP), Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) or Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA).

Experts say oil companies aren't drilling on the land because it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

During recent congressional hearings many Democrats cited a recent report from the Interior Department showing that over 70% of the offshore acres the industry has leased from the federal government are sitting idle.

Onshore, nearly 60%, or 22 million acres in total, aren't producing any oil or gas.

They were responding to calls for more acres of the country to be opened up for oil and gas drilling.

"They have the drilling rights to an area of public land the size of Minnesota where they could and should be drilling," Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat, said in a statement to CNNMoney. "But instead [they] are coming back and asking Congress to allow drill rigs off our beaches up and down the East Coast."
Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices

How the leases work: The oil industry routinely leases blocks of land from the federal government to explore for oil and gas. The leases typically last for 5 to 10 years and cost anywhere from $75,000 to $2 million to get. Then the companies have to pay an additional fee each year for the duration of the lease.

If oil is found, the company get's to keep the lease for the life of the well, which could be 40 years. They would also have to pay the government a royalty on the production, usually ranging from 12% to 18%. If no oil is found, the land reverts to the government.

Markey and other lawmakers say the industry is purposefully idling production so they can book the oil and gas reserves on their balance sheet as an asset -- a move that might drive up their stock price.

Critics also say they might be saving the oil for a future date, when prices might be higher.

The Interior Department, which supports efforts to put more of these leases into production, says over half the nation's 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves lie untapped in the Gulf of Mexico.

To prod the industry into more rapidly exploring and drilling on these acres, the administration and members of Congress have proposed shortening the period for which leases are awarded -- a so-called "use it or lose it" provision.

They have also proposed increasing the amount of money companies have to pay each year for their leases, which can range from $40,000 to $200,000.

Drilling for oil isn't so simple: But the oil industry and independent experts say it's ridiculous to believe that companies wouldn't be trying to produce all they can from the land they have leased if it made financial sense.

The huge amount of untapped land being leased is accurate, said Erik Milito, director of exploration and production at the American Petroleum Institute. But to just look at that number and say the industry is sitting on its hands is too simplistic, "it doesn't explain the oil and gas businesses at all."

...By forcing the industry to produce on its idle leases, lawmakers hope to raise domestic oil production, which would tend to increase U.S. jobs and add to federal tax rolls without having to open up additional lands for drilling.

Some hope it would also lower gas prices. But it's questionable if forcing production would have the desired effect.

Conservatives keep say the answer is simple - drill baby drill. Oil companies have plenty of leases they are not using, even if the Obama administration was slow to approve new leases. Oil companies like to keep oil production in sync with refinery production, keeping gas prices high is an incentive for them to continue business as usual. No president of either party is to blame for gas prices. gas prices are do to oil company behavior and that of speculators that hope prices go up.

When did the requirement that most employers cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no extra cost start?

When did the requirement that most employers cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no extra cost start?

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

Like every other issue conservatives run on the current outrage is riddled with falsehoods, lies and exploitation. Sound bites to get the conservative base - who would like to take America back to the good old days of the Salem Witch trails - riled up.