Security briefings – Romney/Ryan finally receive them

Editor’s Note – Traditionally, the moment a candidate receives and accepts the nomination from a major party, the current administration ensures that the candidate begins to receive daily security briefings. The reason being, that the person may be the next President of the United States, and during the campaign needs to know what is on tap worldwide so that person can make sure they do not infringe on the safety of America as they campaign.

How is it then, that the briefings start only now, two weeks after they were announced and more than a month since the nomination process was completed? On September 13th, it was announced that Romney would get briefings, after the recent events of 9.11.12 in Benghazi. However, they did not begin until this week for Ryan, Romney was briefed on the 17th, after the subsequent misleading statements, and now the official admission that the Libya event was an act of teror, and now the cover-up and media void/lapses, one must question with great verve, why the delays?

Politics as practiced by the “say or do anything to get re-elected” group strikes again. The only question is, why did we hear about it just now? Also, when we know Obama did not even attend most of his own, the important question is, why is security taking a back seat to campaigning? Is there something to hide? We should ask Clinton and Obama…

It is safe to assume, these briefings will be increasingly more important, and skipping a briefing is never acceptable. Taking a print version and reading it without professional and experienced explanation is like getting X-Rays and interpreting them without a physician explaining what they mean.

Paul Ryan Receives First Intelligence Briefing; Romney Visits CIA Building

By ABC News

ABC News has learned that GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan has received intelligence briefings from the U.S. government. Ryan spokesperson Michael Steel confirmed the briefing took place.

The campaign would provide no other details, such as timing. Presidential candidates and their running mates traditionally receive classified briefings from the intelligence community in the run up to an election.

On September 13, the Romney campaign announced that both Ryan and Mitt Romney would start receiving intelligence briefings.

“For the last several weeks, the Romney campaign has been in touch with the intelligence community to arrange intelligence briefings for Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan, consistent with tradition,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said at the time.

Romney received his second intelligence briefing from President Barack Obama’s administration Thursday morning at a CIA office building at the Dulles Discovery Center in Dulles, Va. The briefing lasted about two hours.

His first came on September 17 in Los Angeles.

Republicans have sought to open a line of political attack against President Obama for not attending daily intelligence briefings like those instituted by former President George W. Bush.

Update at 12:56 p.m. ET:

Following his briefing Romney today spoke to veterans at American Legion Post 176 in Springfield, Virginia. Without referencing specifically his briefing nor the details of the classified briefing he had just moments before, Romney warned about the dangers lurking throughout the world.

“The world is not a safe place, it remains dangerous,” Romney said. “Look in North Korea. They continue to develop and promote nuclear capability on their own part, and to export it to others. Syria, 20, 30,000 people killed in Syria. Iran, closer and closer to having nuclear capability. Egypt, now with a Muslim Brotherhood president. Pakistan, highly, um, tumultuous. Afghanistan, our men and women still in Afghanistan. You keep going around the world, it is still a troubled and dangerous world.”

Rhetoric, context, meaning – where's the truth?

Campaign Contexts: The Kitchen Table Issues

By  – American Spectator

We know the mess Obama has made of them. But what about Romney’s understanding?

We’ve heard a lot about “context” lately. It’s the first refuge of a scoundrel: what I said doesn’t mean what you think I said if you take it in context with everything else I said, whenever I said it.

But there’s a second part of the “context” issue, and it’s more important than the first. The second part is the context placing what politicians say into the issues that are in voters’ minds. How far apart is the rhetoric from what people really care about?

No longer does anyone claim the “context defense” for Joe Biden. When Mr. Biden he speaks, there is either no context at all, or there are so many unrelated concepts strung together that no one can keep track of them. Biden plays with words like a musician who changes the key he’s playing in three times in the course of one song.

Case in point: last week, Joe started with an accusation that Romney and Ryan would “unchain Wall Street” and ended the same phrase (sentence? paragraph? Who knows?) by telling an audience (about of which half were black), “…they’ll put y’all back in chains.” Only Joe would string together an accusation the first half of which is class warfare and the second half is the threat of a return of slavery. Rudy Giuliani had it about right in saying Biden evidently lacks the mental capacity to serve as vice president or president.

The context defense is the media’s favorite to explain away Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment, which is the sum total of his total faith in government and his rejection of free market capitalism. For the record, here’s the entire quote:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The full quote doesn’t change the meaning of the excerpt. Obama clearly said that government, not smart, hard-working business people, is responsible for the success of businesses large and small. This is a kitchen table issue. Small business owners, such as Mr. Chris McMurray of the “Crumb and Get It” bakery in Radford, Virginia, understand that. Mr. McMurray declined a visit by Mr. Biden and his entourage because of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark, noting that his wife had just worked twenty-four hours straight.

Mr. McMurray understands that people expect that America’s economy is supposed to reward hard work and initiative. It’s an issue that is worrying a lot of Americans this year and not only because of Obama’s remark. Our economic system has been fundamentally changed in the past three and a half years by Obama’s spending, by the enactment of Obamacare (which gave the government control of about 16% of our economy) and by the over-regulation of our economy by Obama’s federal agencies.

Kitchen table issues such as that are the real context of the presidential race. And neither candidate has boiled his messages down to explain how they will solve these issues.

It’s not simply “the economy.” The economy is an amorphous concept that people think about only in terms that affect themselves. To boil it down the candidates have to reduce it to those terms: how to bring unemployment down, how to revive the housing market, how to make gasoline and other forms of energy cheaper and how to make Social Security and Medicare solvent.

And the kitchen table issues go beyond the economy. They are about how to preserve personal freedom that is under attack by the government everywhere from the entry gates at airports to the ability of businesses, both small and large, to function in the overburdening regulatory environment. They’re about how all Americans will be able to afford and obtain the best medical care. They’re about how sequestration may cost one million defense industry jobs and why Obama’s Justice Department is suing Ohio to block early voting for military members. And it’s about voters’ growing distrust of the gatekeeper media who are spending each day proselytizing for Obama.

Romney says the answer to unemployment is to spur economic growth by relieving the regulatory burden and reducing tax rates for business and individuals. But he hasn’t explained how that will work, or explained the many economic studies supporting his idea. Obama attacks Romney’s plan, but hasn’t presented any new ideas. He’s still insisting on more spending, more debt, and that tax hikes are the answer.

We know — from the Social Security and Medicare Trustee’s report — that Medicare Part A is bankrupt now and Part B will be bankrupt as early as next year. Social Security will be bankrupt about ten years later. Both Obama and Romney are now arguing about whether senior citizens will be hurt by Romney’s plan, which is written to prevent anyone over 55 from suffering any reduction in benefits. No one — except Paul Ryan — is talking about how to make Social Security and Medicare solvent.

Romney spent most of last week trying to differentiate his economic plans from Paul Ryan’s specifics. Going into the Republican Convention next week, he needs to be able to explain a unified, simple plan that he and Ryan can run on. He needs to say, specifically, how he will balance the budget by the end of his second term. Both men need to stay on the attack against Obama’s commitment to government solutions to every problem we have.

In an August 12 editorial the New York Times wrote of Paul Ryan’s budget, “By cutting $6 trillion from federal spending over the next 10 years, he would eliminate or slash so many programs that the federal government would be unrecognizable.” But isn’t that the point of this campaign? We’d love it if the government as it now stands were cut back to the point that the liberals didn’t recognize it.

That’s a promise to make, and to keep.