The Stark Effect

The past two debates have certainly been fiery and many sparks have flown. So many, in fact, that I bet there are fewer sparks sitting on a middle aged spinster’s bookshelf.

First there was the vice presidential debate. The debate had many memorable lines, but one of my favorites occurred during an exchange between the candidates over Mitt Romney’s 47 percent comment. Paul Ryan alluded to Joe Biden’s tendency to gaffe, to which Biden said, with no apparent irony, “I always say what I mean.” Though I can’t verify it, sources claim this was the moment that Baron Munchausen gave a standing ovation.

Biden’s statement is especially noteworthy in light of Ryan’s allegation that the administration failed to protect the consulate and the US ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. Biden responded that he and the president “weren’t told [the embassy] wanted more security.”

Thank you, Captain James T. Smirk, but the spaceship left without you.

After the debate even CNN reported that “State Department officials told a congressional hearing on Wednesday [October 10] that they requested more security but were turned down by headquarters in Washington.” Thus, while it may be true that Biden always says what he means, it doesn’t necessarily follow that what he says is always true.

The second presidential debate was more impassioned than the first, especially on Obama’s part. George Will, veteran political commentator and ABC News analyst, stated that it was “immeasurably the best” debate he’s seen since televised debates began in 1960. Just what led to Obama’s heated debate performance? I believe Al Gore would say it was from being in an oxygen-rich environment.

Question: what is Al Gore’s favorite pick-up line?

Answer: Is global warming happening here or is that you?

I digress. Like the vice presidential debate, one of the more contentious interactions between Romney and Obama also dealt with Libya, specifically the administration’s failure to immediately classify the attack in as an act of terrorism. According to the Washington Post, Obama said, in his response to Romney, “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror.”

Sadly, that was not the case. While it is true that Obama spoke in the Rose Garden the day after the attack and, while there, uttered a phrase containing the words “of terror,” he did not use it the way he implied during the debate. In the official White House transcript, he says, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation….”

The context of this statement was following his references to the 9/11 anniversary and the high price of freedom. He spoke in the generic, not the specific.

When called out by Romney, Obama didn’t have to respond. Moderator Candy Crowley broke the official debate rules, interrupted Romney and defended Obama. The audience applauded. And Neville Chamberlain sent me a text asking, “Why didn’t I think of that when I faced Parliament?”

Rather than be forced to respond to Romney’s accusation, all Obama had to do was hide behind Crowley’s pantsuit.

Yet the question remains: Why did it take Obama 14 days to specifically label the Benghazi attack an act of terror? Perhaps, according to the Government Accountability Institute, it is because the president has only scheduled his Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) 44 percent of the time since taking office. That means he hasn’t received a daily intelligence briefing 56 percent of his days in office.

So maybe the vice president was right: he and the president weren’t told that the Libyan embassy wanted, or needed, more security, despite the repeated requests by embassy officials.

What he didn’t say, and therefore clearly didn’t mean, was that he and the president could have known had they only scheduled and attended the PDB.

However, they must have been too busy spending time with their friends, i.e., the Hollywood elite, liberal intellectuals and Big Bird, to be bothered with such trivial matters like intelligence reports.

This is a travesty, because increased security might have changed the outcome in Benghazi.

Scotty, beam me up – there’s no intelligence in this administration.