Italy loses 5-4 on penalty kicks to Russia in the U17 Euro Final.

[By the way, just so we're clear, this doesn't disprove that references to terrorism were removed for "other" reasons. It still comes down to why they were removed. There were concerns from State and they wanted to wait until the investigation was complete but important points were removed that wouldn't have definitively blamed it on terrorism.]

Ok, Phil, so the issue all boils down to whether and why Obama's administration was going to use the magic word "terrorism" or not?

And the lying (which fanned flames about the movie leading to additional lives lost) and a security breakdown and requests for additional security. You know, that minor stuff.

And what's this about Republicans changing e-mails? You quoted my second to most recent post (which was in response to Harry's link) but totally ignored my most recent post on the matter. Let me post what I said again:

By the way, just so we're clear, this doesn't disprove that references to terrorism were removed for "other" reasons. It still comes down to why they were removed. There were concerns from State and they wanted to wait until the investigation was complete but important points were removed that wouldn't have definitively blamed it on terrorism.

Don't be disingenuous when quoting my arguments.

I don't know where you're coming up with this idea that Republicans edited the e-mails. I really don't understand this little narrative that the scandal is now about the GOP's actions with the e-mails. Might be the case in your little world but not in reality. ABC reported the general points in the e-mails but the full e-mails don't contradict anything that questioners are bringing up.

Most importantly, brittain, don't get all pissy over this. "Thx."

Can't say I loved the episode overall but an absolutely perfect Michael return.

Phil...

The "email-changing" myth has been debunked....

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

By the way, just so we're clear, this doesn't disprove that references to terrorism were removed for "other" reasons. It still comes down to why they were removed. There were concerns from State and they wanted to wait until the investigation was complete but important points were removed that wouldn't have definitively blamed it on terrorism. Examples: the CIA had "numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya," mention of specific attacks on foreign interests in the area and clear statementd that it "couldn't rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities."

An official responded with the following after those points were removed from the drafts: "They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won't like them :-)"

HPSCI is the House Permanent Select Committee.  ":-)"

I think it is too early to say much about this race beyond that it will probably be a competitive one.  I remember a time when John Kasich had no shot of winning reelection and I also remember a time when Hilary Clinton was a "lock" for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.  Toomey would probably win if the election were today, but it isn't, it is in 2016.  On a different note, does anyone have any thoughts on what's next for Josh Shapiro?  He seems like a real up-and-comer, but I'm not sure what opportunities he has to advance (at least in a statewide race).  I suppose he could run for Schwartz's seat, but my understanding is that he isn't expected to run.

Shapiro isn't going for Schwartz's seat. He's a rumored 2016 Senate candidate. He's currently running the show on the Montco Board of Commissioners.

Again, Pennsylvania is a blue state and at the end of the day, Toomey still is part of a caucus led by Mitch McConnell, who is not conciliatory. It's going to be a close race as it will be a presidential year, but if the Senate ends up narrowly divided after 2014, then Sestak has a more compelling argument to hold Democratic voters together. Sestak will have chance, that needs to be acknowledged.

Anyway, it's three years away, we have no idea what will happen.

I guess I have to say this until I'm blue in the face...

Santorum won by two points in a GOP wave. He had to run for re-election in a Presidential election year. He won by six points. He ran ahead of the Dem Presidential nominee. No landslide but a decent win. If he didn't have a particularly close race, there's no reason to believe Toomey is guaranteed a very close contest. The usual suspects will talk about how Santorum lucked out with a weak opponent. Fine. Here's the thing though: Toomey could very well have the same happen to him especially because the amount of admiration that he has earned from PA and national Dems. Top tier Dems (which really aren't that numerous in the state right now. That's another important point) might decide to pass because they don't want to take on a respected, well funded incumbent (another point being ignored) that isn't some fire breather. If Corbett is re-elected or something allows for an open race for Governor in 2018, Casey is likely to take another shot at the Governor's Mansion or he might just not seek a third term. Cautious Dems might want to wait until '18 instead of risking it in '16.

But this will probably be ignored for the umpteenth time because "PA IS A BLUE STATE. PREZ YEAR. TOOMEY IS DONE OR WILL AT LEAST HAVE A SQUEAKER!" is a lot easier/desirable for some.

People report Our Dear Friend's posts? This place...

Smash just acts gangsta.

Who is the constantly perky young guy that saved Joan last episode? He looks so familiar. Was he in Argo?

No but he was in this, which I think I remember you watching:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Animals_%28miniseries%29

James Wolk.

Yes!

Phil...

The "email-changing" myth has been debunked....

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

Ok but it wasn't being classified as a planned terrorist attack; it was still being blamed on a spontaneous protest in response to a movie.

Now the story is that the protests in Cairo over the movie spawned the attack/"protest" in Benghazi. What I want to know is how did that talking point receive preference over the word of the second ranking diplomat in Libya at the time? This went on for hours. Several requests for assistance were denied. Was this Special Ops team really assembled and ready to go only for the commander to be told to stand down? Unless Hicks is blatantly lying, two requests were made before the fatal 5 AM attack. That's a full seven hours after this all began. The Pentagon said there wasn't a stand down order...then they said they're looking into the incident. Senior administration officials obviously knew what was going on throughout that night so why the hell did they conclude after everything that went down that this was a "spontaneous protest?"

The action and more importantly the inaction of that night need to be investigated further because there was clearly some major screw ups.

Who is the constantly perky young guy that saved Joan last episode? He looks so familiar. Was he in Argo?

Jim and Pam getting together was one of the worst things to happen to the show. It made it more of a drama. I wouldn't want them to get divorced though. Then the mood would just be depressing and tense.

Lack of Leadership? I hope Pat destroys him.

It's an extremely weak reason and plenty of Dems in power circles will be rolling their eyes.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory but I do think the situation has been blatantly politicized to fit the GOP's narrative.

Apologies if this is a bit incoherent. I'm at work and have been doing a few other things while typing this and haven't really re-read it. I'll address more later.

Who is really politicizing the whole Benghazi situation? I think it's the side that didn't want a terrorist attack being mentioned in the midst of a Presidential election (communications revealed that members of the administration said calling this exactly what it was would mean the President would take heat on national security issues during the campaign) and whining about the opposition looking into it when you admit that that's exactly what should be done. And, of course, there are the screams that this is being politicized because some of those people are worried about the political effects there could be.

I want to know why the President of the United States stood in the Rose Garden with the then Secretary of State by his side and uttered total BS (BS which I believed at first) which put more people (not just Americans) at risk when he very well could have known it was a lie. And I'm not going to take "Well, look, we had to fib because I couldn't afford to look badly" from an adult "leader." Who authorized this talking point? Did the President and Secretary of State know it was nonsense? Was additional security denied? Why?

I was an American traveling abroad alone during all of this. It might seem dramatic to some but when you're away from home and see an American - a diplomat, no less - being dragged through the streets of a foreign country, it hits you a little harder. Putting this stupid movie in the spotlight and saying that was the reason for this sent tensions soaring and people were hurt as a result in placed outside of Libya. It's disgustingly irresponsible and should have never, ever been done. I don't give a damn if it would have meant the President looking badly.

Is the term "doctor" supposed to be in parentheses?

If you're pro-life, yes.

1) It's quotation marks.
2) Yes, if you're a human.

Chelsea is now officially on my least favorite teams list. Mourinho returning will make my blood boil even more.

Thank God for the equalizer.

In other news affecting Chelsea, it turns out they could face Arsenal in a playoff for the final automatic CL spot. This is what I'll root for if Chelsea don't finish fourth. Imagine that drama. Then the loser would have to play in the CL playoff round. Of course, this is posing a logistical nightmare.

Aside from blatant hackery, why can't people comprehend that the editing of official documents regarding Benghazi counts as government wrongdoing? At the very least, it involved people in the administration blaming something/someone totally unrelated (lying) and keeping the fact that it was a terrorist attack from the public. The collective "so what?" from some people here is mind blowing. "Oh, they just didn't want to look bad." That's an adult excuse? And with all due respect to my very good friend, this shouldn't fall under "standard political operating procedure." This is a national security issue. I know there is a political angle to everything but that doesn't justify blatant lying.

The legitimate questions that are dismissed so easily by those that want to call any criticism of the President a conspiracy theory need to actually be answered. Those answers could also lead to answers about other important questions about security of the facility. And then we might discover that there are other reasons - besides just not wanting to look bad - why references to an attack were omitted.

I've said this before and will say it again: I'm not one of these conspiracy loons. Never have been. I also think people here will admit that I don't attack the President over every little thing like a lot of people in my party. When it comes to Benghazi, I thought there were a lot of questions that needed to be answered. Then it seemed like it was becoming little more than a conspiracy theorist's dream. I let it go. But as these whistleblowers started to come forward and news agencies (aside from the usual people on the right) published reports of document editing and intimidation, my concerns were renewed. Legitimate questions have to be answered.

If, IF, Obama was impeached, that will now have been two consecutive Democratic presidents by a GOP congress. The GOP certainly look like a bunch of spoiled brats.

I'm not sure what is "spoiled" about this. If you want to say that they'll potentially look bad (especially since views of the GOP sunk during the last impeachment process), fine. People may dislike the reasons for pursuing it however I don't think going for impeachment makes them look like brats simply because they impeached the last Democratic President.

Season's two through four were some of the best in American sitcom history. Obviously it's not as good anymore, but it's still overall a great show.

Yeah, the first season was a little shakey.

That's a good one.

Come on, Benfica!

Was never funny.

You are almost literally the worst.

As part of this legislation, the city will also cover sex change operations for city government employees. Yeah.

The end of an era (and, in recent years, a very sad error). In my opinion, the first few seasons will go down as some of the funniest in the history of television.

I'm glad Michael will be back for the finale. Even though it has to end, it will still be sad. Share your thoughts.

I don't know where the "Sam Spade is black" rumor started but we all sort of ran with it. J.J. is not black. Clarence is not black. Marokai is not black. I believe Frodo is black though.

Gosnell is getting life in prison.