Gore blames Denver altitude for Obama's debate performance

0 comments


It was the altitude. Yeah, that's it. 

As liberal pundits cringed Wednesday night over President Obama's debate performance, Al Gore leapt to his defense with a curious explanation. 

If Obama seemed like he had his head in the clouds, the former VP reasoned, perhaps it was because he was having trouble adjusting to the Mile-High City. 

"I'm going to say something controversial here," Gore said on Current TV, the channel he helped found. "Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don't know ..." 

Gore trailed off with a chuckle, but his fellow co-hosts chimed in with agreement. 

"Exactly," one of them said off-screen. 

Co-host Cenk Uygur noted how when he came from Los Angeles, "You know what I did? I drank two cups of coffee before coming out here." 

Another guest added: "It's really different. The first time I ever did stand up in Denver I had the same exact effect. I flew in that day and when your lungs aren't acclimated to that kind of air, yeah it makes you drawn. It makes you off. The president had an off-night." 

Other Obama supporters weren't quite so willing to give the president a pass. 

"I can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter," comedian and Obama supporter Bill Maher tweeted.


Source : foxnews[dot]com
Read More

All-Star Western #0 Review

0 comments


All-Star Western #1 dropped us into the action with little explanation of who Jonah Hex is and where he came from. For those who first encountered Hex in that issue, All-Star Western #0 will serve as a bare-bones but helpful reference concerning Hex’s origin story. Readers who have been following him since the beginning are likely to be a bit more frustrated by the recapitulation.

Hex veterans Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray guide the story from Jonah’s youth to the modern day, but the task proves too large for just one issue. The book gets off to a great story, with all of the heart-wrenching details of Hex’s family life coming through. As soon as he strikes off as a young man, things begin to fall apart. The story feels like it’s in fast-forward, with major life junctures coming almost every page. The narrative is interesting, but it becomes annoying to read because space limitations leave it so fragmented. In retrospect, it might have been better to tell half of his origin and leave the rest for another time.

The artwork for this book is, once again, in the capable hands of Moritat, the regular artist for the series. The emotions of Moritat’s characters are eminently apparent through their expressions and posture, especially when the story has a bit of room at its opening; however, the abbreviated nature of the story causes problems for the art direction. The amount of action necessitates more panels than there is room for, leading to pages that are frequently overcrowded and a disorienting sense akin to a movie camera crossing over the action line (were there enough panels to establish an action line to begin with).

This month’s issue fulfills its obligation to tell Jonah Hex’s origin, but it’s not the smoothest process. I’ll give points for cramming so many of Hex’s formative moments into such a small space; however, the experience is hampered greatly by the project’s ambition. I do look forward to Moritat’s inks every month, and the team of Palmiotti and Gray once again put together some of the most natural dialog in monthly comics. Verdict: green light for interested newcomers and fans of the creators, yellow light for everyone else.

Poet is a freelance writer, mid-core gamer, and frequent IGN contributor. Follow Poet on Twitter, or post a message on his IGN profile.


Source : feeds[dot]ign[dot]com
Read More

Obama, Romney campaigns ease off Libya debate as administration's story changes

0 comments


As the Obama administration's initial explanation of last week's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya appears to unravel, both presidential campaigns were curiously quiet Thursday -- with the Obama campaign deferring to testimony from a day earlier and the Romney campaign declining to criticize the president. 

The White House on Thursday called the assault a terrorist attack, after officials initially declined to use that term for more than a week. And the administration's claim that the strike was not pre-planned continued to be called into serious question as new evidence emerged of possible Al Qaeda ties. 

But Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt, in an interview with Fox News, gave no indication that President Obama would address the American public anytime soon about the issue and deferred to remarks a day earlier by a top counterterrorism official. 

And Mitt Romney's campaign has said little about this other than to stress the importance of bringing the killers to justice. 

Asked Thursday about the evolving version of events in Libya, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said: "Governor Romney believes our immediate priority in Libya is to track down and bring to justice those terrorists who brutally murdered our diplomats. The attack is a clear reminder that terrorists, particularly those linked to Al Qaeda, remain a grave threat and one that is growing in North Africa."

The Romney campaign appears to have dialed back on Libya since the candidate first criticized the U.S. Embassy in Cairo last Tuesday for a statement that allegedly sympathized with those protesting over an anti-Islam film. 

"I think they're gun shy," Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said. 

Bonjean was referring to the wall of criticism the Romney campaign faced -- from the media and the Obama campaign -- after the initial statement criticizing the embassy in Cairo. Romney defended those comments and went on to criticize Obama's foreign policy strategy in the aftermath of the Libya attack. 

But Romney and Obama on the campaign trail have since turned almost exclusively back to the economy. 

The latest back and forth pertains to two online videos. In one, Romney seems to dismiss the "47 percent" of people who don't pay federal income taxes, saying they see themselves as "victims" and will only support Obama. The other online clip features audio of a young Obama appearing to embrace "redistribution." 

The Twitter pages for both Romney and his campaign show little to no activity on Libya since last week. 

Bonjean said he thinks Romney is "letting the situation develop" before he speaks in any definitive terms on it again. That's not necessarily a bad move, he suggested. 

"I think what they're doing is not taking the shovel away from the Obama administration on the Middle East while they're still digging a hole," he said.

Bonjean said Romney might eventually make hay out of the changing story -- particularly at next month's presidential debate on foreign policy -- but until then, he said it would be best for surrogates to do the attacking. Still, he said it might be appropriate for Romney to say something on Libya in the near future about the importance of the American public knowing the facts about what happened. 

Republicans on the Hill are far less "gun shy" about criticizing the administration. 

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News it was "irresponsible" for the administration to send U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for a round of Sunday show interviews in which she called the attack "spontaneous."

"They had to know at that time that there was terrorist elements involved," King said. "The Obama administration wants us to think that the war against terrorism is over, that the president's policies have worked, that we have nothing to worry about from Al Qaeda. That is dangerous, irresponsible and it was wrong." 

And the Republican National Committee has been flagging the administration's changing statements. In an email Thursday, the RNC asked whether the administration was "deliberately lying" about the facts of the attack.


Source : foxnews[dot]com
Read More

Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence

0 comments


The Obama administration is walking a tightrope on its explanation over what led to the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya -- sticking to its claim that the attack was "spontaneous" while allowing that the situation may have been exploited by militants. 

The latest clarification from the administration came in response to an intelligence source on the ground in Libya telling Fox News there was no significant or sizeable demonstration when the attacks unfolded sometime after 9:30 p.m. in Benghazi last Tuesday. That appeared to challenge the view, espoused by the Obama administration, that ongoing demonstrations over an anti-Islam film had simply spun out of control. 

"There was no protest, and the attacks were not spontaneous," the intelligence source said. "The Libyan attack was planned and had nothing to do with the movie." 

Responding to the account, a U.S. official did not dispute that no major protest was taking place right before the strike. The U.S. official said a small group had gathered outside the consulate between 9 and 10 p.m. local time, but the investigation has yet to determine whether they were demonstrators or armed militants. 

However, the official emphasized there had been a small demonstration, of about two dozen people, at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier in the day. Asked how many hours separated the small demonstration from the attack later in the evening, the U.S. official could not say but added it was also under investigation. 

"Right now, this points to a plan that was hatched opportunistically that day. Of course, if credible new information suggests otherwise, the investigation will pursue those leads," the official said. 

The working theory based on conversations known to the intelligence community, according to the same U.S. official, is that attackers in Benghazi took their "inspiration" from the demonstrations in Cairo. 

"Spontaneous does not mean a 'bang, bang' connection," the U.S. official said emphasizing that a Cairo connection could not be discounted at this early stage of the investigation. 

At first blush, it appears Libyan and Obama administration officials are offering two completely different accounts. The Libyans, including the Libyan president, say the attack was pre-planned. The Obama administration says it was spontaneous. Both sides are sticking to their version of events. 

But Obama administration officials may be easing off just a little, in acknowledging that the protest in Libya before the attack was a relatively tiny one and that perhaps agenda-driven extremists took their cue from protests in Cairo and seized the opportunity to strike. 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said as much when she told ABC News' "This Week" that "as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons." 

This, by itself, is not so far off from what the Libyans are saying. The administration just won't go so far as to call this a coordinated terrorist attack. To the contrary, they still describe the whole situation as spontaneous. 

To that, the Libyans say "preposterous."   

Fox News was told that the assault on the consulate came without warning, and, to strengthen the view that it was pre-meditated, the assault included RPGs and mortars -- including at least one round that hit the consulate roof. 

There were two waves to the assault, Fox News was told. According to the intelligence source, in the first wave, the attackers were heard to say "we got him" -- a reference to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Word spread, the attackers regrouped and the second wave went after the motorcade and support personnel. 

The account relayed by the intelligence source on the ground in Libya is consistent with statements by the Libyan president that the attack was pre-mediated and the work of foreign fighters, which is code for Islamist extremists, including the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa. It is also consistent with an interview by McClatchy Newspapers with a purported Libyan security guard who was injured in the assault. The guard said the consulate area was quiet and "there wasn't a single ant outside" until dozens of armed men descended on the compound.   

These accounts stand in contrast to some statements made by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday talk shows. In several separate appearances, Rice said the assault on the U.S. Consulate began as an ongoing demonstration that spiraled out of control. 

On "Fox News Sunday," she said: "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack, that what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control. But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack."

Even before Ambassador Stevens' murder, U.S. officials say the CIA determined the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating based on four attacks, beginning in June, on diplomatic and Western targets in Benghazi, including the U.S. consulate. That said, U.S. officials insist there was no specific warning of an armed assault, like the one that killed the four Americans. 

While the Obama administration maintains there was no "actionable intelligence" or specific warning about time, place or method of attack before the armed assault, Fox News asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a spokesman for the National Security Council if the four attacks were briefed to the president as part of the highly classified daily briefing. There was no immediate response from either office.   


Source : foxnews[dot]com
Read More