Failure

No threat assessment in Benghazi prior to ambassador’s arrival, source says

By Catherine HerridgePamela Browne

Published September 28, 2012/FoxNews.com

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that no threat assessment was conducted before U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team began “taking up residence” at the Benghazi compound — describing the security lapses as a “total failure.”

The claim comes more than two weeks after Stevens and three other Americans were killed in what is now being described officially as a terror attack possibly tied to Al Qaeda.

The source told Fox News that there was no real security equipment installed in the villas on the compound except for a few video cameras.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, the intelligence source said the security lapses were a 10 — a “total failure” because Benghazi was known to be a major area for extremist activity.

There had been four attacks or attempted attacks on diplomatic and western targets leading up to the Sept. 11 strike on the U.S. Consulate.

Based on that information, a former regional security officer for diplomatic security told Fox News, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had to have been classified or assessed by the State Department as a “critical threat terrorism or civil unrest posting.”

Fox News was told that State Department standards for diplomatic missions overseas dictate physical security standards for this classification. There are two sets — classified and unclassified requirements. The unclassified standards include a 100-foot setback for the buildings from the exterior walls which should be three meters high, in addition to reinforced ballistic doors and windows which can withstand an hour of sustained assault.

Based on the video and photos, none appear present at the consulate.

The former regional security officer, who has worked in the Middle East, told Fox News that the standards are designed to give an ambassador, his or her team and diplomatic security that “golden hour” to burn classified dockets and call in military help for an emergency evacuation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/28/no-threat-assessment-in-benghazi-prior-to-ambassador-arrival-source-says/#ixzz27nG7MQqa

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1865462009001/

Advertisements

Death, Lies and Videotape

(Photos from friends) / September 13, 2012)
Undated photos of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, former Navy SEALs.Sean Smith: Photo: FacebookAmbassador Chris Stevens

US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm

Published September 27, 2012/FoxNews.com

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News — though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a “spontaneous” event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

The officials said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.

Further, an official said, “No one … believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob — no one.”

Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was “shocking” to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault.

The claims that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who from the beginning have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.

“I think we should have answers right away. … I think they’re reluctant to tell us what this event really was probably because it’s an election year. But the American people deserve to know answers about what happened at our embassy in Libya,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., told Fox News.

One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a “definitive” lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.

“It’s inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible,” the official said.

Curiously, Obama referred to “acts of terror” in his first public remarks about the attack. But from there, administration officials went on to blame the anti-Islam film.

Rice was the most explicit in that explanation, insisting on a slew of Sunday shows that the attack was not pre-planned and was tied to the film.

Obama still has not publicly and specifically described the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

But top administration officials have gradually walked back Rice’s version of events.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly suggested Wednesday to foreign leaders visiting the United Nations summit in New York that the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa was involved.

“Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions,” Clinton told the group, according to The New York Times. “And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

She was referring to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Clinton earlier this week called the attack terrorism, two weeks after the fact. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also said that Obama now believes it is terrorism as well.

 Fox News’ Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/#ixzz27hMhWKab

Spin

Obama Administration’s Libya Spin Unravels

Stephen F. Hayes/September 27, 2012 11:14 AM

At the Washington Post this morning, Glenn Kessler posts a collection of the Obama administration’s evolving statements on Libya and some important reporting of facts surrounding the attacks.

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

—   Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14 

 “Based on the best information we have to date … it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent…. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

—   Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16 

“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”

—   Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17 

“Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account.”

—   Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News report aired Sept. 20

Kessler writes: “We will leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions on whether this is merely the result of the fog of war and diplomacy — or a deliberate effort to steer the storyline away from more politically damaging questions. After all, in a competitive election, two weeks is a lifetime.”

Several other data points, however, help us resolve this question.  There is considerable contemporaneous reporting that demonstrates the Obama administration knew long before it said so publicly that the attacks were planned and likely the work of al Qaeda-related terrorists.

From the start, prominent Democrats, and even an administration official, told reporters that the attacks were planned. Senator Carl Levin, emerging from a briefing on the attacks with Secretary of Defense, responded to a question about whether the attacks were planned. “I think there’s evidence of that. There’s been evidence of that,” he responded, adding: “The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated.”

Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, offered the same assessment. “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.”

According to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy “has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the ‘proliferation’ of small and medium weapons at the scene.”

And when did the administration understand the attacks were acts of terror?

For example: Olivier Knox, the White House correspondent for Yahoo News, reported in three separate tweets on September 20 and 21, that the administration knew from “Day One” that the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror. “Trying to pin down whether formally labeling Benghazi attack ‘terrorism’ unlocks new assets for investigation/response,” he tweeted. Then, later: “What the White House calls the Benghazi attack matters b/c it affects what assets US can use in response.” And: “But source tells me that determination was made privately on Day One. So public rhetoric has caught up to policy.”

On September 20, 2012, Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier reported that U.S. intelligence officials were looking at a former Guantanamo detainee, currently a leader of Ansar al Sharia, for his role in the attacks.

And late last week, TWS reported: “Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason.”

Yesterday, Newsweek’s Eli Lake reported: “Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.”

Lake reported further:

“U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”

The inescapable conclusion: Even as several top Obama administration officials insisted publicly that we didn’t have information about whether the attacks were planned or involved al Qaeda sympathizers, defense and intelligence officials were telling the administration precisely the opposite.

This has happened before. From this week’s editorial:

On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.

The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”

In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect. Whether it was because the attempted attacks were unsuccessful or because the media simply lost interest, the administration largely escaped serious criticism for making claims that turned out to be wrong.

Will they again?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-libya-spin-unravels_653130.html?page=2

Superman

Following his 50th town hall meeting in Massac County. U.S. Senator Obama poses in front of the Superman Statue in downtown Metropolis, Illinois. known as the home of the DC Comics super hero.

The Silly Mantra of Obama’s Inevitability

3:34 PM, SEP 25, 2012 • BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

President Obama’s supporters are obsessed with being “on the right side of history.”  This is, after all, the essence of progressivism — history progresses, always upward (don’t ask about the Dark Ages), and progressives exist to speed up that “progress.” This, in turn, informs the view of this election presented by the Democrats and the media.  Bill Clinton gave an effective (if highly misleading) speech at the Democratic convention, a tape emerged of Mitt Romney’s unfortunate remarks at a fundraiser, and — voila! — history has spoken:  Obama’s reelection is inevitable.  He and his supporters have once again, as Obama likes to put it, met “history’s test.”

Only, history hasn’t spoken, and neither have the American people — at least not where it counts, in the voting booth.  Moreover, it’s not yet remotely clear what they are going to say.

So far, Obama, his party, and his primary super PAC, have outspent Romney, his party, and his primary super PAC, by about 15 percent —  according to the New York Times — and Obama has a lead, it appears, of somewhere between 1 and 4 percentage points.  But the incumbent won’t similarly be able to outspend Romney from here on out.  Instead, the tables will likely be turned, as Romney, his party, and his primary super PAC, have more money on hand than Obama, his party, and his primary super PAC — by a ratio of about 4 to 3, according to the Times.

Moreover, if one really wants to look at “history’s test” (in the proper sense of looking backward and learning from the past), Jay Cost writes that, from President Eisenhower onward, the challenger has gained an average of 3.7 points on the incumbent between Gallup’s mid-September polling results and the actual Election Day results.  In the ten Gallup polls taken from September 8 through September 23, Obama was ahead by an average of 1.6 points.  Similarly, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics writes, “Indeed with the exception of 1992 — a difficult race from which to draw conclusions given Ross Perot’s on-again/off-again participation in the race — every contest with an incumbent has broken at leastthree points toward the challenging party from this point in the race through Election Day” (italics added).  In other words, history isn’t on Obama’s side.

To be sure, Romney has his work cut out for him.  According to state-by-state polling from Rasmussen Reports, if the election were held today, Obama would win by an electoral-vote tally of 313 to 225.  But if, by Election Day, Romney were able to swing the margin his way by even 2 points across the board — or even just in the 9 key swing states, where Obama has particularly outspent Romney (but where Romney will presumably be turning the tables soon) — then the GOP nominee would move into the lead in Rasmussen’s polling by a tally of 256 to 247 (with Florida and Nevada undecided and the election hinging on the Sunshine State).  If Romney were to improve by just 1 more point from there (so by 3 points in total), he would win by a tally of 291 to 237 (with Wisconsin undecided).

Suffice it to say, nothing is inevitable here — not remotely.  This race is extremely close and will likely go down to the wire — unless, that is, Romney starts talking more assertively about Obamacare, in which case he may be able to give his victory speech in prime time on November 6.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-libya-spin-unravels_653130.html?page=2

Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)

Libya

Libya president: Anti-Islam film trailer had nothing to do with attack on US Consulate

Published September 26, 2012/FoxNews.com

The anti-Islam film trailer that the White House has repeatedly blamed for sparking unrest in the Middle East had nothing to do with the attack that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, that nation’s president said in a television interview.

Libyan President Mohamed Magarief said the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which also resulted in the deaths of three other Americans, was more likely pegged to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

“Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September,” Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in the exclusive interview. “They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message.”

 The trailer for the anti-Islam film “had nothing to do with this attack.”

– Libyan President Mohamed Magarief

 President Obama and White House staffers have sent mixed signals about what triggered the siege on the unprotected U.S. consulate in the troubled Libyan city, with Obama continuing to blame the film trailer even as evidence mounts to the contrary.

Magarief noted that there were no protesters at the consulate prior to the attack, and that the incident was more of a clearly coordinated assault than a demonstration run amok. He noted the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate and then fired mortars at a safe house where Stevens had fled.

In addition to Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

“It’s a pre-planned act of terrorism,” Magarief said, concluding that the trailer for a purported film called “Innocence of Muslims” had “nothing to do with this attack.” The trailer had been on the Internet since July, but no full-length film has emerged.

Magarief conceded that Libyans took part in the attack, but said “these Libyans do not represent the Libyan people or Libyan population in any sense of the word.”

Magarief, who called Stevens a “humble and very unique individual,” said the nation is in debt to the U.S. for helping to oust ruthless dictator Muammar Qaddafi.

“We consider the United States as a friend, not only a friend, a strong friend, who stood with us in our moment of need,” he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/26/libya-president-anti-islam-film-trailer-had-nothing-to-do-with-attack-on-us/#ixzz27a3VJASh

Iran

A cartoon by the Iranian artist Touka Neyestani shows Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an ‘I love New York’ T-shirt. Photograph: Touka Neyestani/International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com

Obama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on Iran

From Day 1 of his presidency, Barack Obama said he was going to try a different approach to Iran to address its nuclear ambitions and support for regional extremist groups: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” he said in his Inaugural Address. Three years later, a sputtering international diplomatic effort to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program is about all that remains of Obama’s “extended hand.”

Republican challenger Mitt Romney says a weak Iran policy has afforded the regime in Tehran 3-1/2 years to progress toward “nuclear weapons capability” and to pursue its radical regional designs. In his specifics, however, Romney often doesn’t sound all that different from Obama.

Here are three areas where the candidates differ in their approach to Iran: Iran and the bomb, support for terrorism and the Assad regime in Syria, and dialogue versus regime change.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer
posted September 3, 2012 at 9:33 am EDT

1.Iran and the bomb: US military options

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney say a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable,” and both hold out the prospect of military strikes to stop Iran as a last resort. But they use different terminology to describe the threshold that would presumably trigger preemptive US military action.

Obama says he would not accept Iran possessing a nuclear weapon, while Romney says he would not accept Iran reaching “nuclear weapons capability” – a lower threshold that suggests a fuzzier point at which military action against Iran would be undertaken.

To halt Iran’s nuclear march, Romney says he would first impose “crippling” sanctions – the same word Obama administration officials use to describe the sanctions they have already put in place. Romney also says he would order aircraft carriers to maintain a regular presence in both the Persian Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean as a means of convincing Iran that the US is serious about a military option if it fails to halt its nuclear program.  

Both with and without the United Nations, Obama has imposed on Iran some of the severest economic sanctions ever leveled against a country.  

The Obama administration also launched covert operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities, part of a covert war, presumably in cooperation with Israel, that have included cyberworms attacking uranium enrichment operations, explosions at nuclear facilities, and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists – though it is not clear that the US is involved in all aspects of this war.

Meanwhile, Obama and administration officials have focused on reassuring Israel that there is still time to see if sanctions and diplomacy can work before military action is necessary. Romney says he would respect Israel’s right to take preemptive action against Iran nuclear sites if it decides to launch air strikes.

2.Iran, terrorism, and support for Assad

Iran is making it clear that it sees Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s survival as crucial to its regional designs – and that is adding a new dimension to Iran’s place in the presidential campaign. Romney says a nuclear Iran would constitute “the greatest threat to the world” in part because it would embolden Tehran to pursue its regional aims. Obama recently seemed to shut the door tighter on dialogue with Iran when the US rejected a proposal to include Iran in international talks on Syria. The Obama administration says Iran’s participation in Syria diplomacy is a “red line” because of Tehran’s support for pro-Assad militias and “terrorists” in the region.

Romney has been critical of Obama for not leading against Assad. In May, he called for the US to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” – a move the White House said would lead to more “chaos and carnage.” Since then, there have been unconfirmed reports that Obama signed a secret order earlier this year that broadly permits the CIA and other US agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. This support stops short of supplying weapons, Reuters reported on Aug. 1. The State Department, also on Aug. 1, announced  that the US is providing $25 million for “non-lethal” assistance to the Syrian rebels.

Romney has not endorsed the idea of a no-fly zone inside Syria, along the lines proposed by Sens. John McCain (R) of Arizona, Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, and Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut. The Obama administration only goes so far as to say it is considering and studying the idea.

3.Dialogue or regime change?

Little is left of Obama’s effort at dialogue with the Iran, but that is not stopping Romney from citing Obama’s “extended hand” as a misguided show of weakness with America’s adversary. The former Massachusetts governor says Obama was so focused on “outreach” to the Iranian government that he refrained from supporting Iran’s Green Movement in 2009 – “a disgraceful abdication of American moral authority,” he says.

Obama has not spoken about “regime change” in Iran, in part because the term is so closely associated with the George W. Bush presidency, but also because any hint of American support for the Iranian regime’s internal foes risked dooming the international nuclear talks with the Iranians.

Romney shows no such concerns about Iranian sensitivities: He says his administration would work with Iranian civil society and dissident groups “to encourage regime change” in Tehran. In addition, he would seek an international indictment of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “incitement to genocide” over his past calls for Israel’s annihilation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0903/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-3-ways-they-differ-on-Iran/Iran-and-the-bomb-US-military-options

This Feb. 15, 2012, file photo, released by the Iranian President’s Office, claims to show Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (second left) being escorted by technicians during a tour of a research reactor center in northern Tehran.
(Iranian President’s Office/AP/File)

Whoopi, Baba, Barry, Micky, Joy, Sherri, Elis

Barbara Walters: This is a very close race still. What would be so terrible if Mitt Romney were elected? He was Governor, he will probably be a little more moderate, he wants…he says… I’m being Elisabeth, okay? [audience laughs]

President Obama: Elisabeth’s very good at being Elisabeth [audience laughs]

BW: OK, then I’ll be Barbara, alright. Okay.

Joy Behar: Let Barbara be Barbara.

BW: Let Barbara be Barbara. My point is, would it be disastrous for the country if Mitt Romney were elected?

President Obama: Well, you know I think America is so strong, and we’ve got so much going for us that we can survive a lot. But the American people don’t want to just survive, we want everyone to thrive, we want folks to have a shot at success, and so the question then just becomes, whose policies are more likely to lead us to where we want to go?

President Obama: I’ll give you a very clear example. Yesterday Governor Romney on “60 Minutes” was asked, does he think it’s fair that he pays a lower tax rate than somebody who’s making fifty thousand dollars a year, and he said yes, I think it’s fair and I also think that’s the way you get economic growth, the notion being that if people at the top have more income, they’ll invest and they’ll create jobs. I’ve just got a different vision about how we grow an economy. I think, Barbara, that you grow an economy from the middle out, not from the top down, and that when the teacher and the bus driver and the receptionist and the office manager — when they’ve got a little money in their pockets, when they’re doing well, then that means business has more customers, that business makes more profits, they hire more workers, and that’s been the history of our country, we grow fastest when the middle class is doing well and when folks who are trying to get into the middle class have ladders of opportunity. So that’s a different vision about how we move the country forward, and ultimately it’s going to be up to the American people to make the decision about who’s got the better plan.

First Lady Michelle Obama: I’m voting for him.

BW: [addressing the POTUS but pointing at FLOTUS] Someday she should run for office, but she said she doesn’t want to.

President Obama: Look, I mean Michelle would be terrific, but temperamentally I just don’t think that’s something she…. [audience laughs]

Michelle Obama: No, it’s absolutely true.

BW: Why?

Michelle Obama: It takes a lot of patience to be the President of the United States and I’m not that patient. You know, I am not.

BW: What are you going to do with the rest of your life?

President Obama: Well, first things first here — we do have an election ahead and there are all kinds of things I want to do in a second term… Putting folks back to work and making sure our schools are up to snuff.

BW: And then?

President Obama:  And we’ve got another war to wrap up. In a post-presidency, the thing that I think I would enjoy most is spending time working with kids. I love teaching. I miss teaching and I’m not sure necessarily it will be in a classroom, but the idea to be able to go around to various cities and helping to create mentorships and apprenticeships and just giving young people the sense of possibility.

PHOTO: President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama make their first joint appearance on
“The View,” Sept. 24, 2012. Donna Svennevik/ABC Sep 24, 2012 05:40 PM

LBJ, FDR, AL, BHO

‘60 Minutes’ Edits Out Obama‘s Claim That He’s the Fourth Best President (AP)

President Barack Obama sat for an extensive interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” last week, though it appears the portion of the interview actually broadcast on TV left out a statement where Obama essentially declared himself the fourth best president in terms of his accomplishments.

The statement was only made available online as part of the full interview on “60 Minutes Overtime.”

According to a transcript posted on the “60 Minutes” website, Obama said he would hold his accomplishments so far as president against those of Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

“I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft.

http://news.yahoo.com/60-minutes-edits-obama-claim-fourth-best-president-133404689.html

Watch the full interview below. The statement comes at the very end, around the 56:10 mark of the 56:53-minute video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57341009-10391709/president-obama-the-full-60-minutes-interview/?tag=contentBody;listingLeadStories

Massive ego, thy name is Barack.

Eye Candy

eye candy —  n

1. a person who is or people considered highly attractive to look at,  often implying that they are but lacking in intelligence or depth

2. something intended to be attractive to the eye without being demanding or contributing anything essential

“I’ve been told I’m just eye candy here.”

— President Obama in an appearance on “The View,” a women’s daytime chat show. The interview, which was taped Monday and includes first lady Michelle Obama, is set to air today.

Massive ego, thy name is Barack.