I'm dumbfounded.

Just when I thought the world couldn't get any more sprayed-roach crazy than it is, the American Ambassador to Libya is murdered (along with three other Americans), and all the mainstream media can do is criticize Romney for speaking out against it?

This makes me furious.

I don't know if I'm more angry at the media for being such lapdogs or at Obama for letting this happen.

And don't for one single minute think that Obama isn't on the hook here.

The media was, and still is, quick to blame George W. Bush for 9/11, saying he "ignored many al-Qaida warnings" prior to the attack.  But where are they on this?  Where are they on Obama's failure to attend intelligence briefings in the week leading up to the 9/11 anniversary?

I'll tell you where they are - they're in the press room figuring out how to gang up on Mitt Romney and make him look "unpresidential."  Are you kidding me?!  Ben Smith has a bunch of supposedly Republican, anonymous (of course) sources blasting Romney's statement:

A third Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, "It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation." 

Really?

George Bush was relentlessly pounded for being slow to react to the news that America was under attack on 9/11/2001.

He was also widely criticized for his slow response to Hurricane Katrina (even though he could NOT go in without authorization from local officials).

But Mitt Romney, in a presidential moment, responds swiftly in a statement decrying the murder of an American in a terrorist attack and it's too soon!  The nation hasn't grieved yet!

It's just crazy.

Professor Jacobson:

A very good post from Victor Davis Hanson explains how this happened in the first place:

Egypt is currently a beneficiary of more than $1 billion in annual American aid, and its new Muslim Brotherhood–led government is negotiating to have much of its sizable U.S. debt forgiven. Libya, remember, was the recipient of the Obama administration’s “lead from behind” intervention that led to the removal of Moammar Qaddafi — and apparently gave the present demonstrators the freedom to kill Americans. This is all called “smart” diplomacy. 

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And of course, the press can't be bothered with putting the blame where it lies.  They're more interested in removing the threat to their candidate than exposing the truth.

Allahpundit has the right questions:

 The signs were there; one of the Marines at the consulate apparently even saw Libyan “security” taking photos of the compound beforehand. What did the State Department do to prepare? Why are Marines only being sent now, after the fact, to beef up security? Why was there no evacuation plan in place? Why, apparently, didn’t Obama attend any of his daily intel briefings this week with the anniversary of 9/11 bearing down? Why did his campaign move more quickly to condemn Romney for his statement than the White House did to condemn the mob activity in Cairo and Benghazi? Why do these questions only seem to get asked of presidents from the party disfavored by the concern trolls we call reporters? 

If there was ever any doubt that the press is in bed with Obama, it's gone now.

I pray to God that people will do their own research on the candidates this fall and not listen to the mainstream media.  They are as culpable in this debacle as narcissist that inhabits the Oval Office is.

What if George W. Bush had jetted off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser on the night of 9/11?  Why, the press would be apoplectic!  Not the same thing, you say?  Three thousand lives lost to four?  Not the same thing?  Tell that to the families of the victims.  Tell that to the victims that are sure to come.

This is not the end.  There will be more attacks as long as this bungling Jimmy Carter redux is in office.

Brace yourself.

Much more at Memeorandum.

E.J. Dionne is delusional.  There is no other explanation.

In his latest column, titled "Can A Messiah Win Twice" (gag bucket, please...), Dionne ponders the likelihood of Obama's re-election:

Most Americans still believe that Obama inherited rather than caused the economic turmoil. Barring another crisis in Europe, there is a decent chance of somewhat better times by Election Day.

Obama's fall offensive against Republicans in Congress has paid dividends. Voters seem inclined to blame Washington's dysfunction on the GOP, not on a president they still rather like. Most also think Obama's foreign policy has put the nation on a steadier course.

Wow.

Where to start?

"Obama's foreign policy has put the nation on a steadier course." 

Yes, the shoot to kill drone program has netted us so much new intelligence!  Oh wait....

Most Americans, I think, recognize and are disgusted by Obama's fawning, bowing, apologies to dictators and his alienation of our allies.

Most Americans would be disgusted by his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and the news this week that Obama is aligning with Qaradawi to negotiate (read "surrender") with the Taliban.  He's preparing to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political party.

Most Americans are disgusted by his lack of support for Israel.

Most Americans were repulsed by Obama's failure to support (until forced to make a statement) Iranians protesting a stolen election and who wanted democracy even when they were shot down in the streets by mullah enforcers.

Most Americans were stunned by Obama's complete and utter failure in Egypt.  Egypt has now replaced a pro-American regime with an anti-American one.  Again, he's aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

There's much more fisking to be done on Mr. Dionne's piece, especially on the economic portion, but frankly, I'm getting nauseous. 

Clearly Obama still has plenty of fawning sycophants in the media.

Oh, and for the record, Dionne is betting that Obama gets re-elected.  Bwahahahahahaaa!