Flem72

Searched, but can't find. Can you provide sourcing?

I trust you would apply the same standard to Hilary or BHO?

Part of the problem in dealing with dolts is that they don't respond to what you say but to what they think you want to say but haven't. I'm not implying anything here: I've expressed my full intent..

I may have forgotten, but I believe the evidence was that Haldeman and Erlichman ordered it, but Nixon went down for orchestrating the coverup.

Assuming,of course, you refer to the investigation, and, again, I ask: How at this point do you know that?

ah, I see, you are an expert at misdirection, innuendo and irrelevancy. Maybe you could address what I actually wrote? And how racist of you to assume that I am neither brown nor black (nor human?) and therefore lack empathy. I forgot, and have been reminded, that I plonked you once before; should never have taken on that ludicrous Cesco thing.

I'd suggest that this is because Pickering/Mullen ARB actually did look into the pre-attack situation. See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf Is this slant accurate? by which I mean, are these things the focus or just the tip of the iceberg? I would say the investigation focuses only upon what was known when, a turn of phrase that was famously made popular in the course of the Watergate hearings. The fact that the talking points were -- shall we say -- "edited" is just evidence of what DOS and WH may actually have known but claimed in front of God and everyone else not to have known. Why would anyone have a problem announcing a terrorist attack on an embassy/consulate/installation if there was no political iron in the fire? I don't believe that government failed promptly to announce a terrorist attack in any of the situations hrothgar posted from the Cesco article--for instance. It seems to me to be relevant to the common good whether someone, or several someones, in a position of trust and responsibility initiated a coverup because s/he knew/knows that the actual screwup was not a poor decision made in good faith on incomplete information but a selfishly motivated, considered decision, made with knowledge of the facts, purely to protect a political position. The Watergate burglary was trivial; a failure to act in the Benghazi scenario -- no one now disputes that there was real-time information -- seems to me at best cowardly and incompetent and at worst immoral. I'd like to see any and all information that might indicate which it was/is. Huh? I'm aware of no evidence of any thought of a counterstrike? (A CIA operative claims we know who did it and he's still walking around.) I assume you mean investigation of what happened. What, they couldn't believe the drone footage or the Libyan president or their own folks on the ground? Of course, this administration is very good at 'ongoingly investigating' problems to death.... Irresponsible how? Do you believe that 'misjudgment of sensitivity' is an accurate description of the facts as now known? That's as good an obfuscatory/minimalizing label as any I've ever seen. Congratulations. Again, I'm amazed that many, maybe most, can see the smoke but conclude -- without seeing any need to investigate -- there is no fire. The fact that the synchophant press is now acting something like real journalists are supposed to act should be a tipoff to anyone with eyes to see.

I was made aware early on that CIA was involved in tracking arms delivery routes in North Africa and was operating out of this installation. Ambassador Stevens was working the operation as State liaison.

Wonderful. Aren't you even a little embarrassed to post this as some sort of reasonable element in the discourse? The Cesca piece is exactly what I'd expect from HuffPo lefties, misdirection and almost relevant "facts." It's a pile of crap, and it has nothing to do with any fact-finding attempt by Graham or Fox News or anyone else. This is a guy with a "put anything out there to protect Hilary/BHO with any kind of emotional bullshit you can come up with" agenda. "??????"s and "!!!!!!"s galore. Is anyone claiming American installations aren't routine targets for these groups? No. Is this guy claiming Fox didn't report these events? No. Is he claiming that these events should have excited inquiry? Apparently, yes. If he's at all honest, he believes and wants his readership to believe that these attacks are of the same nature as the Benghazi attack. In fact, except for the people who were killed at Karachi, all of the dead were innocents or staff in the wrong place at the wrong time or security personel defending the installations; in fact, except for Yemen and Jeddah, the attacks were either bombs -- got time to respond to that, American pigs? -- or a few armed people who were killed by security personnel; in fact, all of these attacks were over in fairly short order. The result in all of these attacks was that security measures in place worked to the extent they could work to repel the attacks and kill the attackers. Judge for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia....nsulate_attacks http://en.wikipedia....m_in_Uzbekistan http://www.guardian....saudiarabia.usa http://www.washingto...6091200345.html http://en.wikipedia....Istanbul_attack http://en.wikipedia....mbassy_in_Yemen

So, just politics. I take it you don't care to attempt to place this in the continuum of situations from just politics to something more? Anything from 'geez, we can't let Libya look bad, it's our baby' to high crimes and misdemeanors? I'm not saying I know, I'm just curious that there is so little interest, in the general public, in answering the question: If this is a conscious effort to (shall we say) distort the facts for political ends, and if that effort motivated or delayed beyond effectiveness the decision to forego deployment of available support forces, how do we characterize those actions?

Couldn't agree more. You've been around long enough clearly to remember Watergate. Was that just bad judgment? or something more? how do you distinguish that lapse from this re: (a) seriousness of underlying blunder, (b) attempt to make it seem to be something it wasn't and © motivation of that attempt on a scale from intentional, immoral, purely political action to 'man oh man, we just couldn't figure out what the heck was going on'? (And if you can, please email Jay Carney asap. He is in need of some insight.)

Just asking....

Mike Lawrence's structure is intuitive and efficient (apologies for formatting glitches in cut/paste): 1D-2C = Forcing to 3N or 4m 1. O’s rebids: 2D = 12-19, 5+ Ds. Anything else denies 5+ Ds 2H, S = < 5 Ds, 4 cds, denies stop in other M. 2N = 12-14 or 18-19, stops, does not deny 4 card M. (Death hand e.g., AQJ xxx KQxx Jxx or Kxx xxx KQJx Axx . Prefer 2N rebid unless a good 14, then 3C. ), 3C = 3 very good or 4 Cs, not min i.e. ≥ 14 sp. 3D = very good suit, 15+ 3H,S = spl, 15+ sp 3NT = 15-17, 6 + suit, spread out values. 4H, S = void spl, 17+ sp 2. R’s rebids: 2H, S = 4 cds, denies stopper in other M over 2D. 2NT = 12-14 or 18-19—stops; does not deny 4 card M over 2D, so O can bid 3M showing 4 cards. 3C = good suit, may be very good suit and very little else. 3D = if over 2D, 3 Ds, no stops, presumably unbal if over 2M, 2NT or 3C, 4+ Ds, no stops, unbal 3H,S = if over 2D, spl, good 3 (2 honors) or 4+ Ds, 15+ sp if a raise, 4 in M, 12+ sp, outside control if over 2NT, 4 in M, shape showing if over 3C, presumably a stop, denies stop in other 3S after 2H = spl raise, 12+ sp 3NT = if over 2X, 15-17 other spl = may be support/spl for any 2X 4H,S = if a raise, picture bid: 12-14 sp, no control outside Cs and M NOTE: NT re-raises or jumps after a call that could be 12-14 or 18-19, show 18-19. E.g., 1D-2C/2N-3N/4NT, 1D-2C/2N-4N, 1D-2C/2M-2N/3N-4N. The keys are: O's 2D rebid is broad range and only claims 5+ Ds; 2NT calls by either player do not deny a 4 cd M; O's 2M rebid claims 4 and denies a stop in the OM; 4 cd M can be bid by either at any time; if O has a 6-4 1RF reverse kind of hand, s/he will rebid Ds at whatever level is appropriate.

OOPS. Got those auctions backward and very very wrong....NO problem with the actions as given.

I'm interested in the theoretical basis for doubling in front of partner, who will balance with virtually any hand that would make the double successful. HCP distribution? I note that on hands 5 & 6, doubler's partner has a pretty normal balancing call.

TY. Appreciate this, though I don't much like the answer....

Asking here so I at least have a chance of not being forced to try to decipher the charts. I've seen various statements of the GCC HCP parameters for opening at the two level with two suiters, both suits known. I can't always be sure that I'll be allowed to play up, so I try to keep things GCC-legal: anyone have the definite skinny?

As I recall, the FF weren't so worried about Congress creating a standing army -- there is a specific power. So it is hard to see the NSA as an "end run."

Geez. Standing army created 1784, '85? Constitution 1787? Also: More folks should actually read the cases. Con Law is like any other highest-level enterprise: There are many substantive issues that remain philosophical conflicts But procedural issues -- the role of the courts, the process of and limits upon appellate review -- are largely settled, except when a majority of SCOTUS decides differently, in order to flex its muscles, as in Roe v. Wade. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Stay tuned.

The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *$% politicians.

you must be a drummer.

I favor a fairly natural treatment, but maybe excluded as a specific gadget: Open 1D, rebid 2 forcing K-S C, treating the 2C rebid as a reverse. Responder is required to rebid 2S with 5 and has a 2D out with any bad hand; opener's continuations can show this kind of monster. I like to play this way in p'ships that have adopted mini-splinters.

Just awakened. Those boys seem to have been busy all night -- more innocents dead -- just establishing the rules of engagement, as it were.

The way things are, no prosecutor releases these photos labeling the subjects as "suspects" unless the prosecutor is 99% sure they are the guys. Remember the Atlanta bombing. So, yes, they are IUPG, and as I said, this is America and they will get a trial. I merely expose another moral viewpoint: 'In any conflict, the rules of engagement are established by the least principled participant.'