Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Again with the Osama bin Laden is dead. Really, that's all he has?

And then there's this vomit-inducing rhetoric:

There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.

Please, Mr. President, enlighten us: how many have to die or suffer injury in an attack to elevate it to "large-scale" status?

But don't answer me. Direct your response to Jane Richard and her family. Jane is the seven-year-old sister of Martin, the eight-year-old killed in the small-scale Boston Marathon bombing. Jane was relesased from the hospital yesterday after 39 days and 12 surgeries. Additionally, close to 300 people were wounded during this small-scale attack. Tell them why Boston was small-scale. You owe it to them.

We want a president, but what we get is this:

Stop spiking the football on that OBL touchdown of yours (and by yours, I mean the one performed by a group of American warriors who were carrying out the raid while you were golfing) and start taking responsibility for your administration's terrorism failures in Boston and Benghazi.

We believe the little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs or the scientist who cures cancer or the president of the United States — (cheers, applause) — and it is in our power to give her that chance. (Cheers, applause.)

But here's the reality today, a long seven months later:

Apple grilled about tax havens

Apple executives defended the company's tax strategy on Capitol Hill Tuesday, claiming that it pays one of the highest effective tax rates of any major corporation.

A Senate panel called the hearing to examine what committee leadership said was the iPhone maker's strategy of shifting income to an Irish subsidiary to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Apple officials said the money resided with its overseas operations, such as those in Ireland, not to avoid taxes but because of the growth of Apple's sales overseas.

And after listening to Senators Levin and McCain, you'd think that criminal charges against Apple are imminent. . .

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and ranking member John McCain of Arizona both started the hearing with withering criticism of Apple's practice of shifting income to Ireland to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Levin, a Democrat, called the practice a "sham," while McCain, a Republican, said that Apple's claims that it use of the Irish subsidiary did not reduce its U.S. taxes is "demonstrably false."

"U.S. corporations cannot continue to avoid paying their appropriate share in taxes," said McCain. "Our military can't afford it. Our economy cannot endure it. And the American people will not tolerate it."

. . .except. . .

Even the critics of Apple at the hearing did not claim that it was doing anything illegal with its tax strategy, they were only saying that the way the current tax system is now set up was bad policy.

So the entire hearing was a stunt?

Rosen’s alleged source, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, was indicted in 2010 for disclosing national defense information. Although no charges have been filed against Rosen, journalists are logically demanding that the government explain how it can be a crime for a reporter to pursue government secrets when it is not (yet) a crime to publish them. If that’s the case, then hundreds, if not thousands, of current Washington reporters are criminals.

The search warrant — like the recently reported seizure of Associated Press telephone records by Department of Justice — indicates the federal government may be changing the rules on how it spars with reporters. If that’s the case, and I’m not sure it is, journalists should use whatever legal means at their disposal to resist.

But reporters should never depend on the law alone to protect them and their sources from exposure. By observing sound tradecraft in the reporting of such delicate stories, they can keep themselves and their sources from getting buried when digging for a story.

Rosen’s journalistic technique, if the Post story is accurate, leaves much to be desired. He would have been less conspicuous had he walked into the State Department wearing a sandwich board lettered with his intentions to obtain classified information and then blasted an air horn to further alert authorities to his business. For example, one data point investigators used to connect Rosen with his alleged source, Kim, was the visitor’s badge the reporter wore when calling on the State Department offices. According to security records, Rosen and his source left the building within one minute of each other and then returned only several minutes apart inside the half-hour. A few hours later that day (June 11, 2009), Rosen’s secret-busting story was published.

Even teenagers practice better tradecraft than this when deceiving parents.

I don't agree at all. Technology today makes discovering who leaked what much easier than just a decade ago. The first Blackberry smartphone was released in 2003; the first iPhone in 2007. It not that Rosen's techniques are shoddy, it's that for the first time, the Department of Justice can easily track the the communications of government employees.

As for teenagers and their tradecraft, one of the counts against Kim is lying to the F.B.I. Shafer's advice for journalists applies equally to those in the government who leak information: your parents always know when you're lying, so, don't.

The Obama administration has pursued more such cases than all previous administrations combined, including one against a former CIA official charged with leaking U.S. intelligence on Iran and another against a former FBI contract linguist who pleaded guilty to leaking to a blogger.

The Kim case began in June 2009, when Rosen reported that U.S. intelligence officials were warning that North Korea was likely to respond to United Nations sanctions with more nuclear tests. The CIA had learned the information, Rosen wrote, from sources inside North Korea.

The story was published online the same day that a top-secret report was made available to a small circle within the intelligence community — including Kim, who at the time was a State Department arms expert with security clearance.

FBI investigators used the security-badge data, phone records and e-mail exchanges to build a case that Kim shared the report with Rosen soon after receiving it, court records show.

In the documents, FBI agent Reginald Reyes described in detail how Kim and Rosen moved in and out of the State Department headquarters at 2201 C St. NW a few hours before the story was published on June 11, 2009.

“Mr. Kim departed DoS at or around 12:02 p.m. followed shortly thereafter by the reporter at or around 12:03 p.m.,” Reyes wrote. Next, the agent said, “Mr. Kim returned to DoS at or around 12:26 p.m. followed shortly thereafter by the reporter at or around 12:30 p.m.”

The rest here.

A question I have: Are there actually more leaks during the Obama administration or is it that the Obama administration is using tools that other presidents haven't to track administration ineraction with journalists?

From 2009:

I just -- I want to end by saying a few words about the men and women in this room whose job it is to inform the public and pursue the truth. You know, we meet tonight at a moment of extraordinary challenge for this nation and for the world, but it's also a time of real hardship for the field of journalism. And like so many other businesses in this global age, you've seen sweeping changes and technology and communications that lead to a sense of uncertainty and anxiety about what the future will hold. 
Across the country, there are extraordinary, hardworking journalists who have lost their jobs in recent days, recent weeks, recent months. And I know that each newspaper and media outlet is wrestling with how to respond to these changes, and some are struggling simply to stay open. And it won't be easy. Not every ending will be a happy one. 

But it's also true that your ultimate success as an industry is essential to the success of our democracy. It's what makes this thing work. You know, Thomas Jefferson once said that if he had the choice between a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, he would not hesitate to choose the latter. 

Clearly, Thomas Jefferson never had cable news to contend with -- (laughter) -- but his central point remains: A government without newspapers, a government without a tough and vibrant media of all sorts, is not an option for the United States of America. (Applause.)

From 2010:

Earlier today I gave the commencement address at Michigan, where I spoke to the graduates about what is required to keep out democracy thriving in the 21st century. And one of the points I made is that for all the changes and challenges facing your industry, this country absolutely needs a healthy, vibrant media. 'Probably needs it more than ever now.'

From 2011:

You know, in the last months, we've seen journalists threatened, arrested, beaten, attacked, and in some cases even killed simply for doing their best to bring us the story, to give people a voice, and to hold leaders accountable. And through it all, we've seen daring men and women risk their lives for the simple idea that no one should be silenced, and everyone deserves to know the truth.

From 2012:

I do want to end tonight on a slightly more serious note — whoever takes the oath of office next January will face some great challenges, but he will also inherit traditions that make us greater than the challenges we face.  And one of those traditions is represented here tonight:  a free press that isn’t afraid to ask questions, to examine and to criticize.  And in service of that mission, all of you make sacrifices.

And finally, from 2013:

But even when the days seemed darkest, we have seen humanity shine at its brightest.  We’ve seen first responders and National Guardsmen who have dashed into danger, law enforcement officers who lived their oath to serve and to protect, and everyday Americans who are opening their homes and their hearts to perfect strangers.

And we also saw journalists at their best — especially those who took the time to wade upstream through the torrent of digital rumors to chase down leads and verify facts and painstakingly put the pieces together to inform, and to educate, and to tell stories that demanded to be told.

Here's an idea: If The White House Correspondents' Association is really concerned with press freedoms, they shouldn't invite the president to the 2014 dinner. 

He's referring to his joint appearance with Rubin on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources.

Does Kurtz consider Shuster a "reliable source" based on this rhetoric?

SCHULTZ: My God, this just doesn't even sound like Barack Obama, it just doesn't.  You know, your, your film, "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State," shows that the recent crackdown is not the first time the DoJ, the Department of Justice under the Obama administration has come after journalists. Now, with "War on Whistleblowers" as a backdrop and then this story surfaces, what are we to believe? ... This is tough times and, hard times and bubble gum for, for Obama supporters, don't you think? It's tough to chew here.

GREENWALD: It's very tough times and, you know, that's what I said, I don't think anyone wants, you know, people who are Obama supporters or supporters of progressive policies, this is not gleeful jumping up and down, this is saying this is sad, this is painful, but we've got to speak the truth and we've gotta create pressure. And maybe, you know, one positive thing to think about is, think about what people in the immigrant community (have) done, and the LGB community. When they were not getting what they needed, they pushed back. It's similar with civil liberties, it's going to be similar with war, it's going to be similar with drones. We need to push back on this. And sadly, there is a pattern and this happens with all presidents, whether you call it the military industrial complex or the national security state, which checks on 1.7 billion emails every day, think about that power. They have a tremendous impact and power on whosever president. And it's our job as real patriots to push against that.

SCHULTZ: Well, you know, if somebody's politically motivated, they can destroy people's lives. They can, they can, they can destroy candidates, they can destroy people's lives. I mean, this is almost like a secret society that's operating here. And if this goes all the way to the president, it'll be the end of Barack Obama, it will. If this goes all the way to the president, this could be, this could be his downfall.

The whole piece from Newsbusters here.

While in private practice in 1995, Mr. Cole was tapped to serve as Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. In that role, he led an investigation into allegations that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had improperly used tax-exempt money for partisan purposes and misled the Committee in its inquiry. His investigation led to a bipartisan resolution that was approved by an overwhelming majority of the full House, and resulted in a formal reprimand of Speaker Gingrich and a requirement that he pay penalties.

I wonder if the AP ever complained about Cole's tactics in the Gingrich investigation?

For example, here's Hillary Clinton at 10:08 p.m. on Tuesday. This statement is after our embassy in Cairo tweeted (why are they tweeting anyway?) that the video was to blame for the attack on our embassy in Cairo:

I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

This got the ball rolling in the "blame the video" direction. Remember, it's an election year. If the attack is a spontaneous event, and thus out of the president's control, that's a lot better narrative than al Qaeda being able to pre-plan the attack. Romney responded at 10:24 p.m.:

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.