Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Here’s the video:
Remember that the attacks came in waves and lasted for six and a half hours. Drones were in position to watch. Teams could have been deployed from Italy and arrived in time to help. What happened?
Reacting to this news, Charles Woods, the father of killed ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, didn’t mince words:
The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack “are murderers of my son.”
Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.
“They refused to pull the trigger,” Woods said. “Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son.”
Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to “stand up.”
Here’s his son’s story, and the father’s reaction:
Glen Beck also interviewed Mr. Woods today. He asked Mr. Woods about his interactions with the president, vice president and Secretary of State Clinton. He was not impressed that any of them were terribly sincere in their expressed apologies. Our vice president even made a couple less than appropriate remarks (surprise), and Mrs. Clinton explicitly said they’d go after the guy who “made that film” is arrested; not the attackers. Here’s that video:
When can we expect the administration to respond to these, and other inflammatory allegations, or should we expect to be kept in the dark until after the election?
UPDATE: Greta van Susteren and Liz Cheney discuss the president’s debate statement he did all he could to protect our people during the attack, while our forces only an hour’s flight away in Italy weren’t deployed during any of a 7 hour, multi-wave attack our leaders were able to watch from drones overhead. Even an F-18 flyover may have scared the attackers off, but nothing was done. Meanwhile on one occasion Reagan acted within 90 minutes to scramble fighters to take down a possible terrorist threat in the sky. Decisive leadership can get things done. The question is: where was the president? Where was the Secretary of State? Wouldn’t the Secretary of Defense have given the president a choice of assets to deploy in the region? Nothing was done, and our president says he did all he could? Greta: “we just sat and watched.”
This reported tonight by Reuters, CBS, Fox and others.
Watch Fox’s principal report here:
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Three emails were obtained.
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:
“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.
What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.
While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.
With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?
While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.
It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.
Here’s CBS’ video report:
If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?
Something is really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook here.
Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.
I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”
So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.
His One Argument: bin Laden
Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”
First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.
Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.
Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.
Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots
1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.
Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.
I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….
Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.
Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.
Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”
Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).
The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.
The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.
Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …
Please help us promote this information far and wide before Monday’s debate. (Thank You!)
Count on it: Before Monday night’s last presidential debate, the Obama administration and/or the State Department will release new information surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Libya in a desperate attempt to alter the truth: That their combined efforts for a month to cover-up the fact they could have prevented the assassination of an American ambassador and three other great Americans. And the fact they all knew on September 11th the attack was a pre-planned, sophisticated, terrorist attack. The desecration of Camp David has only just begun this weekend.
The history we are witnessing right now will go down in American legacy as far more serious than anything related to the Watergate scandals. Nixon’s web of deceit was bad. Obama’s is obscene! The stain he is leaving on the Office of President is deplorable. The intelligence community is only now beginning to expose Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton after they falsely and repeatedly blamed the intelligence community for promoting the “movie-trailer video” narrative.
We at MittRomneyCentral know that most of our viewers prefer brief videos. However, I believe the following video contains crucial information every American should see and understand. For if they were to take it all in, not one American voter would ever vote for Mr. Obama. Not one.
THANK YOU to Bret Baier for this comprehensive investigative reporting! If you wish to only watch the portion of video where the Obama administration’s deceit and cover-up began, see the minute descriptions outlined below the video.
I believe Bret Baier’s powerful investigative reporting is important to view from beginning to end. However, if your time is limited, you may want to start at one of these points below and watch the entire piece later:
Beginning to minute 21:55: Actual videos, photographs, interviews, and illustrations of what actually occurred at the consulate September 11th (Warning: some of the footage is graphic)
Minute 22:00: The Cover-Up Begins
Minute 29:15: October 8th, almost one month after the attack, we see Obama actually reveal his main message and reason for the cover-up. He is desperate to prove that he has vanquished terrorism altogether; that al Qaeda’s threat is waning. In fact, the threat of terrorism is advancing! Mr. Obama’s naked hubris in the face of obvious brazen deceit is nothing short of spectacular!
Minute 33:58: The election…The campaigns…Governor Romney calling President Obama out in front of 60+ million Americans in his courageous duty to expose the cover-up!
We must all do out best to expose President Obama’s deceit. Time is so limited now.
For those that are just getting to know Governor Romney or who have not had time to read his books or study his past deeply, you need to understand a very important fact about this man: Mitt Romney knows more about radical Islamic terrorism than any person to ever seek the presidency of the United States. I believe that when he is elected and in office, he will be the most prepared president to face the intense, growing threat of terrorism than any previous person to occupy the Oval Office. Look it up for yourself.
We all contemplate Monday night’s debate on foreign policy. In the last three weeks, Barack Obama and Joe Biden blamed the intelligence community for “the movie trailer” narrative for a “spontaneous” attack on the Benghazi consulate. How long did you think it would take the CIA and other intelligence sources to correct the record on such a blatant lie? Did Mr. Obama really think we Americans are all so dumb as to believe such nonsense?
In one word, “yes.”
But why? An absolutely crucial element of Mr. Obama’s campaign theme is that al-Qaeda has been largely decimated and rendered ineffective. Why? Because Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden. Following the flawed logic, Americans are to conclude the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is no more. We will therefore give all the credit to Mr. Obama by granting him four more years in The White House.
Mr. Obama: We know your game. We have seen this act before. You can go hide out at Camp David this weekend to spin another web of tales for Monday. We will never forget those who have sacrificed their lives for America.
As we all contemplate Monday’s debate and the authority granted each one of us on November 6, 2012, please watch this short video, especially at second 0.35 when Bill Clinton speaks for Mr. Obama. Bill Clinton’s shameless and disgusting revelation perfectly defines this president and his character:
“Horrible for him”? How reprehensible! But it is all the more “in character” after Mr. Obama’s unemotional and insensitive comments regarding the deaths of four great Americans on 9/11/12 as not “optimal.”
Mr. Obama’s “optimal” reality will be stark the evening of November 6th.
American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”
Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist— Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families
That Libya moment during the debate is something we Romney supporters need to hammer on a daily basis for the next three weeks. Romney told the audience it took two weeks for Obama to call the Libya event an act of terror, which Obama disputed by claiming that his Rose Garden speech (the day after the attack) called it an act of terror. The moderator stepped in an backed up Obama’s claim despite its inaccuracy, which helped Obama get away with the false claim. This is a must-read article on the topic, written September 30.
Obama’s Rose Garden speech was far from calling Benghazi attack an Act of Terror.
“Obama said during the speech that ‘No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation’ — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. ‘Acts of terror’ could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”
It seems like a mere technicality, so why is this even an issue? Here’s why (from the last paragraph of the article):
“Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.” (Emphasis added)
In other words, once the president officially designates the event as an “Act of Terror” — there are a lot more options “on the table” to forcefully respond and bring the perpetrators to justice. That is the decision that Obama “uhm’d and awe’d” about for weeks before making up his mind as the administration went back and forth between the “act of terror” conclusion vs. a “minor protest over a video” conclusion. It was September 11, our country had a crisis on its hands, and Obama made sure he didn’t miss his Las Vegas fund raiser that day.
Taking a cue from the Biden playbook, Barack Obama pulls a face and acts like he’s going to spring from his chair as Mitt Romney makes a point at the presidential debate held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY on Oct 16, 2012. (photographer unknown)
The presidential debate action at Hempstead, New York, is in the can…
There were tense moments.
Pundits and politicians will be talking for days about the ‘terrorism’ Libya moment - the one where Obama water carrier moderator Candy CNN Crowley interrupted Mitt Romney to side with Obama by injecting her jaw-dropping version of fact-checker. Cutting off the Governor, she sided with the President on remarks he claimed he made in the Rose Garden the day after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama said he labeled the attacks as “terror” right away. After the Crowley butt-in, Obama then called from way back on his stool for Crowley to repeat her “fact” louder. Turns out, Obama and Crowley have nothing to crow about:
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi later said on FOX News that it looked like “the ref just threw the flag.”
After the debate, Crowley, who repeatedly cut Romney off, and when all was said and done, bequeathed Obama with 3 minutes and 14 seconds more speaking time than the Governor, tried to back off. She conceded that Romney was “right in the main.”
There’s so much I want to say about Ms. Crowley’s moderating, but I’ll constrain myself and just say she made a disgusting hash of it.
Someone else agrees with me:
Candy Crowley did have one good moment: when she addressed “President Romney” #NotAnError
After the debate, Frank Luntz (FOX News) conducted a focus group in Nevada of mostly former Obama voters. Romney impressed them. Here is Part 1:
Luntz began the discussion by asking participants for a word or phrase to describe Romney’s performance:
“Confident and realistic.”
“Presidential and enthusiastic.”
“Our next president.”
“Knowledgeable and sincere.”
“Steady and articulate.”
Part 2 may be viewed here.
The 82 voters in the town hall setting were chosen by Gallup and Candy Crowley selected the questions. Romney walked into a stacked game but didn’t back down. Voters saw him as someone with strength, leadership, and a common-sense plan to move America forward. Obama was aggressive, pulled a few Biden-style faces, did a lot of bluffing, and threw in some blaming. He offered NO plan.
No wonder Independent swing-voters like Mitt Romney.
We will never forget these four men who sacrificed everything for America.
A MUST SEE VIDEO…
I think every American should see this video. Please listen carefully to what Ambassador Bolton says here.
President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are doing everything within their sphere of authority and power to obfuscate and bury the facts surrounding the assassinations of four great Americans on September 11th in Libya. Their motives are quite simple. Their number one objective in the next three weeks is to stall the release of facts until after the election. Pure and simple. I honestly believe they couldn’t care less what the families of these courageous men feel or think. It is completely political to them.
Please watch this short video clip up to minute 4:45. I think this video clip contains more truth in one place than we saw over weeks of hearings during the Watergate cover-up and subsequent investigations. As Americans, we simply cannot allow this travesty of truth to occur on our watch. I cannot tell you how incensed I feel about these duplicitous individuals who only care about their political futures! Here are some of the highlights from the video:
1:20 Bolton: “Ambassadors are the personal representatives of the President of the United States! They cover all our agencies overseas and they are all presidential appointees.”
2:44 Bolton: “Hillary Clinton’s own department was in real time communication with the consulate and knew what was going on at the consulate.” (She feigns ignorance!)
4:20 Bolton: “This was a high threat mission that…Even the Red Cross had withdrawn due to the threat level…” Hillary Clinton certainly should have known what was going on at this mission well ahead of September 11th.
PLEASE watch this video and tell your friends. I strongly believe every American should see this and know how our leaders cannot be trusted any longer as they all scramble to cover-up simple truths and facts:
Here is what we know about the Libyan consulate assassinations on September 11th:
Messrs. Obama and Biden will never take responsibility for any failure of theirs. By default, they blame the Dept. of State and the U.S. intelligence community for security failures at the consulate. It fits their four-year pattern of deflection at every turn.
Five days after the attack, Ambassador Rice was adamant that the attack started as a protest to a YouTube movie trailer created last summer.
No intelligence expert was ever aware of a spontaneous protest, at the consulate, based on a video.
Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. security personnel in Libya, numerous times had requested of the Dept. of State heightened security at the consulate prior to September 11th and were denied every time.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states categorically that she had never been aware of any requests for additional security at the consulate and she blames the U.S. intelligence community.
Nobody wants to allow Ambassador Rice to disclose who told her to publicly report that the attacks started as a simple protest to a movie trailer.
COVER UP: One or more of the following entities is directly involved outright in this cover-up: 1) The White House, 2) The Dept. of State, and/or 3) the intelligence community (I seriously doubt the intelligence community is part of this cover-up and I think they will soon leak information to the press that will directly implicate 1 and 2 by way of retribution).
I honestly believe that what we are witnessing at the highest levels of the United States government is a cover-up far more serious than that of President Nixon’s Watergate and I strongly believe the facts, as they become widely known in America, will end Hillary Clinton’s chances to ever become POTUS in the future.
The men and women involved in this cover-up will do whatever they can to stall and hinder the congressional investigation until after the election.
Nobody was killed in the Watergate break-in.
American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”
Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist— Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families
Vice President Joe Buffoonery Biden proved once again at last night’s vice presidential debate in Danville, KY, what an embarrassment he is for the United States of America. (photographer unknown)
With his derisive laughter, zombie eye-rolling, feigned incredulity, exaggerated theatrical gestures, continual interruptions, and over-all condescension, Vice Presidential smirk monkey Joe Biden negated any gains he hoped to make at last night’s V.P. debate. Biden’s performance sealed the deal for him… as the simpleton from Scranton and America’s permanent political huckster. Debate moderator, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, failed to control all-show Joe and left many yearning for Jim Lehrer.
Although GOP Vice Presidential candidate 42-year-old Rep Paul Ryan is 27 years younger than 69-year-old Biden, he was resolute, reassuring, and ready to take on the smart-aleck. Ryan was clearly the adult seated at the debate desk in Danville.
Polls from CNBC and CNN revealed Ryan won.
Here’s just a sampling of Twitterverse take-aways (comments from FOX News contributors at end of article):
[POLL RESULTS] Who do you think won the VP Debate? Paul Ryan: 56%, Joe Biden: 36%, Neither: 8%. #CNBC2012