Tag Archives: Libya

Obama’s Benghazi-gate — Bigger Shovel, Mr. President?

24 Oct

There’s an old saying pertaining to lying which goes something like this: “Is that hole you’ve dug yourself into deep enough now, or would you like a bigger shovel?” Maybe that’s the question which should be posed to Barack Obama over Benghazi-gate.

First, giving credit where credit is due, keep in mind, if not for the excellent, daily reporting on Fox News, especially by Catherine Herridge from the Pentagon and Bret Baier on Special Report, Team Obama might very well have gotten away with a coverup over the Benghazi attack and the killing of our ambassador and three other brave Americans, and you in the American public would have been none the wiser. Obama could have maintained his reelection campaign “narrative” that “leading from behind” in Libya had worked and that al-Qaeda had been essentially decimated and was in retreat.

The facts are (a) that “leading from behind” is what those of us with some military experience call “following,” (b) Libya was left “free” but, striped of its former military, government offices and security forces and thus unable to protect itself from resurgent and roaming al-Qaeda militias, much less provide normal host country security to embassies, consulates and their personnel, and (c) the al-Qaeda franchise was so “decimated” that it had metastasized from 9 countries when Obama took office to about 30 countries today.

That’s likely what happens when Islamists, who at least are hardcore realists, see a US president who has trouble saying the words “terrorist attack(s),” a Secretary of Homeland Security who engages in the tortured language of calling them “man-made disasters,” and a president who refers to them as “overseas contingency operations.”

It was the persistent drumbeat of Fox News reporting:

(a) which led to a Congressional investigation,

(b) which led to State Department officials admitting that lack of funding had nothing to do with security of our consulate on the ground (take that, Joe Biden),

(c) which revealed that State Department officials had watched the attack in real time and knew it was not the video, it was not the result of some larger demonstration “spun out of control,” as so long claimed by Team Obama,

(d) which led to some in the lamestream media finally having to run stories on it, and

(e) now, today, Fox has obtained same-day emails from Benghazi to approximately 400 officials at State, the White House Situation Room and Obama’s National Security Council saying that Benghazi was under attack, that a local al-Qaeda group was claiming credit for the attack, and that they needed help, which was never sent by Leon Panetta at the Pentagon or anyone else in the Obama Administration, although I think we had an aircraft carrier, with a contingent of Marines aboard, in the vicinity of Libya at the time.

So, out of all those officials to whom those emails were routed, we are to believe that none of them told Hillary, none of them told Obama and/or Biden? Really? I mean, really? And, what about all those Team Obama claims (lies) for over two weeks or more that “we’re investigating, we didn’t know, fog of war, it was the video, it was a larger demonstration ‘spun out of control,’ it was the, um, ah, hey, Harry, what’s the story today?”

Boy, if Obama hated Fox News before, as has been alleged, he must surely hate them now. Awww, they’ve spoiled his reelection campaign narrative of successful foreign policy, and about the only thing truly successful about that is that Osama bin Laden is (still) dead, albeit alleged that it was Leon Panetta who gave the “go” order, because Valerie Jarrett (who really runs the White House) had three previous times prevented Obama from doing it, and Obama had to be gotten off the golf course (where else?) in time to come to the White House Situation Room for the photo op of watching Navy SEAL Team 6 take bin Laden out.

So, you Kool-Aid drinking liberals out there can oh so cleverly call it “Faux News for limited thinkers” all you want, but my real question to you is: are you so determined to protect Obama’s butt and be blind to what is now his obvious coverup attempts over Benghazi that the killing of four Americans, which could have been prevented, matters less to you than that? If so, you are a sorry SOS, and shame on you.

If Nixon could be driven from office and forced to resign over Watergate and the subsequent coverup, which was, after all, only an illegal break-in of DNC offices at the Watergate, with no one even being injured, much less killed, then Obama’s lies and coverup of Benghazi-gate, in which Americans were killed, which was likely preventable, should also be a NATIONAL OUTRAGE over which Hillary Clinton should have to resign, Obama should have to resign, and they and all their henchmen and handmaidens foisting the coverup on the American people should be criminally prosecuted.

We know we cannot count on Obama’s liberal, lapdog media to adequately cover this shameful outrage, as they literally hounded Nixon and his officials for weeks and weeks over Watergate, even often camping out at their homes, so write your local newspaper editors, write your congressional representatives and demand they ensure a full and swift investigation and accounting. Use parts of this article if you like, even without attribution, but take some action! The families of four brave, murdered Americans cry out to you, to all of us, for justice.

Advertisements

Third Presidential Debate — First Impressions

23 Oct

Obama played checkers. Romney played chess. Obama played tactics. Romney played strategy. Obama went small ball. Romney went big picture. Obama sometimes went petty. Romney stayed the happy warrior throughout. Obama, especially during the last half of the debate, looked so intently at Romney (possibly overcompensating from looking down too often in the first debate which he lost so badly) that he almost seemed like a cobra coiled to strike at the first opportunity, but Romney just wouldn’t really give him one. Romney looked pretty relaxed throughout. Obama sometimes seemed defensive, whereas Romney seemed aspirational and optimistic for a restored America and her people.

I was one of those who wanted Romney to just bloody Obama about Bengahzi-gate, the security failures before and the coverup after, but Romney’s strategy of avoiding it, although Obama even tried to pull him back into it at one point, was probably the better idea. Romney probably knows that enough about Benghazi-gate will have to come out in even Obama’s liberal lapdog media now, because of Congressional investigations and Senatorial letters to Obama demanding answers, that Romney himself didn’t need to push it tonight.

So, Romney on style and, surprise, surprise, likability (happy warrior) and Obama on debate points, although some of them were small and petty. Romney also on a strong economy being the basis for projecting strong foreign policy, delivering the same devastating analysis of Obama’s failed economic policies as in other debates, for which Obama had no answer.

Romney, too, on laying out in more detail what he would have done differently, even about what Obama has already done on foreign policy, plus other measures and considerations in dealing with Iran and Pakistan, whereas Obama was left with simply stressing more of the same, much of which we know hasn’t worked.

Romney also on not allowing Obama to draw him into seeming to be some crazed warmonger, which Romney knew was part of the Obama strategy for this debate. So, overall, Romney. He did what he needed to do to sustain the momentum he gained in the first debate and sustained in the second debate.

Oh, and the post-debate fact-checkers? Obama got it wrong more than Romney and even what Romney got wrong was only partially wrong.

As to Obama’s condescending comments about Romney not understanding how our military works, that the days of horses and bayonets are gone, etc., suffice to say the post-debate tweet by one Marine, that Marines still use bayonets (as do Soldiers, by the way), shows maybe Obama also doesn’t understand all he pretends to about our military and its warrior ethos.

Second Presidential Debate — Some Factoids and Discussion

19 Oct

I’m not going to “analyze” the debate, who won, who didn’t, what the instant polls said, what later polls said, what this or that focus or impression group thought, how much of a “bump” who will get, and blah, blah. Plenty of other people have done that and are continuing to do it. I’m just going to share with you some factoids and related discussion about the debate.

According to CNN’s own timekeeping (and remember the debate moderator Candy Crowley is from CNN), Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50. That’s a difference of three minutes, fifty-four seconds, or almost four minutes. Considering the debate format severely restricted each candidate to only two minutes of unfettered speaking time per question asked, that’s an advantage of about two, entire speaking periods which the moderator allowed Obama.

The “unbiased” Candy Crowley is CNN’s chief political correspondent and anchor who said Romney must have had a “death wish” when he picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. ‘Nuff said.

Candy Crowley, “the moderator,” interrupted Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times, a ratio of more than 3-to-1. No further discussion necessary.

The “moderator” did an on air, instant, “fact-check” supporting Obama calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror in his 9/12 Rose Garden remarks, when in fact he did not. Both Romney and Obama may have law degrees (and Romney has an MBA as well) but so do I, as well as a minor in English, and I can parse words with the best of them.

Obama’s comments about ACTS of terror (like 9/11), not AN ACT of terror, and his comments about the Benghazi attack are separated by EIGHT PARAGRAPHS in his Rose Garden remarks and are not connected. Crowley was even corrected by her own CNN fact-checkers right after the debate. Since then, she has tried to walk back her comments but is still receiving harsh (and justified) criticism from both sides of the political spectrum for injecting herself into the debate, and for being wrong on the facts when she did.

Many contend Romney missed an opportunity by not immediately drawing the contrast between Obama’s Rose Garden comments (even if we admit just for the sake of argument that he did call Benghazi an act of terror) and subsequent, repeated comments over a TWO WEEK period thereafter by his UN ambassador, his press secretary, his secretary of state, his various other spokespersons and surrogates, as well as himself in his UN comments, that it was all about the video and a larger demonstration which had “spun out of control.”

No one on Team Obama called Benghazi what it was, a terrorist attack, in all that time. Yet, we now know (because of Congressional hearings, not anything admitted by Team Obama) that State Department officials watched the attack in real time via uplinked, satellite video and knew there was no larger demonstration which “spun out of control.” That’s not 24 hours later or 48 hours later. That’s at the time it was happening.

Of course, those who blame Romney for that missed opportunity may not have noticed that right after Crowley’s erroneous “correction,” then Obama asking her to repeat it, and the smattering of supposedly disallowed applause for them both, Obama, seeing that Romney was going to persist in commenting on it, quickly asked Crowley to move things along, so as to get more questions in (yeah, uh-huh), and Crowley then cut Romney off about Benghazi.

Oh, and here’s another little known factoid: when Crowley “corrected” Romney and Obama asked her to “Say that a little louder, Candy,” despite the previously announced debate rules that both the on- and off-stage audiences would remain quiet throughout the debate, there was a smattering of applause for Crowley’s so-called “correction” and Obama’s encouraging comment. But, do you know who started that applause? Why, none other than Michelle Obama, sitting off-camera in the larger audience, that’s who. Guess she just couldn’t contain herself over Crowley’s “help.”

However, Romney had already made sure to say during the debate, on national TV, that he was glad to get Obama “on the record” with his claim that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror on 9/12, and not only that, but also now has a “bonus” of Obama on video demonstrating some of his fake indignation that any suggestion that he or any of his people would misrepresent things to the American people was offensive and then peevishly added, “That’s not what we do.”

Also there’s also the bonus debate video of Obama claiming that he evidently did answer that 3AM phone call, much touted by Hillary’s campaign when she was running against him, and immediately called his national security team and directed them to do three things: beef up security all across the region (kind of like after the horses already left the barn), find out who committed the attack (maybe State should have shown him their real-time video), and bring them to justice (the alleged mastermind of the attack has now supposedly been identified but they can’t find him anywhere). Of course, I guess there’s no way to prove if Obama actually answered that 3AM phone call or not, or what, if anything, he directed his national security team to do, or not do, so he’s probably safe with that claim. But then, he also evidently went back to sleep until the next day.

It’s now thirty-eight days since the attack and, although Obama has had time to campaign, fundraise and appear on Univision, ABC’s The View, CBS’ David Letterman’s Late Show, some obscure radio show where he weighed in on some feud between Mariah Carey and Nicky Minaj, and most recently on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, and he’s been repeatedly asked about Benghazi even in those “soft” venues, he has yet to find the time to sit behind his desk in the Oval Office and, as president and commander-in-chief (both of which he so often likes to remind us that he is), look directly into the TV camera and explain to the American people what happened and why, when he knew what, what he’s done about it and what we should be doing about it going FORWARD, to quote his own campaign slogan.

If Romney doesn’t come loaded for bear on Benghazi-gate in the next, last debate, which is totally focused on foreign policy and hopefully has a more moderate moderator, shame on him. Then, he really will have missed an opportunity. But he doesn’t have to actually call the president a liar about Benghazi-gate on national TV. All he has to do is show that he is. Then, merely insinuate that if Team Obama have lied to us about this, what else have they lied to us about?

Obama’s “reset relations” policy with Russia not working, his open mic comment that the Russians give him more time until after the election, his “America apology and appeasement” tour with Muslims not working, his so-called “soft power” and sanctions with Iran not working, his distancing of himself from Israel, what arms we are finally sending into Syria going to al-Qaeda groups (Middle East Fast and Furious anyone?), instead of the real rebel, Syrian freedom fighters, and the resurgence of al-Qaeda all across Northern Africa and into Indonesia, as well as his foreign policy unraveling all across the Muslim world, with our embassies being demonstrated against, our flag being desecrated and him being burned in effigy — all these things, and more, show Obama’s foreign policy is a failure……and why, in this election season full of so many inconvenient truths for this president, he has to lie about it in order to try and salvage it. But a pretty bow and fancy wrapping paper on a package of monkey dung do not change what it is, or make it smell any better, either.

Romney should methodically and persistently tick off such a foreign policy failure list in the next debate, just as he has on Obama’s failed domestic policies in the past debates. If Romney does that and no more, he wins — Obama’s own failed record will sink him for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

However, that latter category evidently does not include college students at a recent Obama event who had not even heard of Benghazi and probably couldn’t find even Libya, much less Benghazi, on a map if their lives depended on it, or recent on-the-street interviewees who were interviewed the day of but before the night of the second debate, yet still said Obama had won. Unfortunately, some of the voting public are beyond hope — and maybe even change. That’s the reason all the rest of us must vote on November 6. We not only can’t let Obama win. We also can’t let the ignorant and the uninformed win.

Obama’s Bungled Benghazi Brouhaha

25 Sep

Now, I’m just a regular American who gets his news from a couple of TV outlets, one conservative and another not so much, some online subscriptions to both conservative and liberal, as well as French and UK, news sources and who does his own, independent research on the Worldwide Web. (Well, maybe I’m not so “regular” in that regard after all, because, unfortunately, I don’t think many Americans are all that engaged in what’s going on in the larger picture.)

Anyway, I’m not privy to the type of intel to which, say, someone in the State Department, the UN, the White House or in Congress would have access. Just like most of you, I am largely dependent on our government to discover and tell us the truth. But what the Obama Administration has been telling us about the attack in Benghazi for two weeks now has been, to say the least, confusing, if not downright contradictory, confounding, if not a cover up.

So, just based on common sense and what’s been put out by the media in the public forum since September 11, 2012, let’s see what we can piece together, not from inside intel or some diplomatic information to which only the Obama Administration is privy, but just from what are called “open sources.”

First, the United States was successfully attacked on its own soil (all of our consulates and embassies in foreign countries are considered US territory) for the first time in 11 years, when our Libyan consulate was overrun, our first ambassador in 33 years was killed, along with three other members of our foreign service corps, by what was first reported to be about 20 but more recently reported to have been as many as 100 radical Muslims with links to al-Qaeda, in a military style, 2-wave attack, with heavy weapons, including rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), over a 4-hour period. This included not only attacking the consulate compound itself but also the safe house located some distance away, the existence and location of which were supposedly known only to selected consulate personnel.

The next day (whatever happened to answering that 3AM phone call?), President Obama appeared, with Secretary of State Clinton by his side (perhaps for support or perhaps to share in any blame later), in the White House Rose Garden, where he decried the attack but indicated it was caused by a little-seen, 17-minute, amateur video trailer against the Prophet Muhammad, which had been on the Internet since June, and refused to take any questions from the gathering of reporters, ostensibly because he didn’t have time, as Air Force One was warming up on the tarmac for a trip to a Las Vegas fundraiser at the time. Talk about bad optics, appearing out of touch, etc. An ambassador of ours has been killed in a terrorist attack for the first time in over 30 years and it’s give a brief statement to reporters, take no questions, give no reassurances and then it’s back to reelection campaign matters and saving your own job?

Later, presidential candidate Romney also held a press conference in which he said a message released by the Cairo embassy, trying to distance the US from the video, was a mistake and we should not be apologizing for anything. Subsequent to that, Romney held another press conference, at which it’s since been shown the liberal mainstream media (MSM) colluded and ambushed him with everything from “shouldn’t such critical remarks stop at our shoreline?” (they certainly didn’t raise that issue about Obama’s apology tour and Cairo Muslim appeasement speech in 2009) to seven out of the eight questions asked of Romney just being variations of “gotcha” questions (when did you stop beating your wife?), simply rephrased over and over.

My own view is that Romney should have waited a day or two, so as not to appear to politicize the issue and to give Team Obama time to make more mistakes (which they did in spades), but certainly, as a candidate for president, Romney had every right to comment and I think his initial reaction was the correct one — WE were the ones attacked, so what the hell were we APOLOGIZING for? If he had not commented, it’s fair to surmise the MSM would have been all over him for NOT commenting. Where’s Romney on all this? — and blah, blah, blah.

Then, aside from some releases from the Obama State Department, not denying the claim that the video caused the attack but mainly saying they couldn’t comment because the Benghazi attack was under investigation by the DOJ and FBI (again, with the law enforcement attitude about terrorism, instead of the DOD and State Department investigating, and using the same dodge used by AG Holder in the Fast and Furious investigation), there was basically radio silence from Team Obama.

That is, until Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice went on all the main Sunday TV talk shows on September 16th, where she gave full throated voice, and with a straight face, no less, that it was all the video’s fault and they had no information that the consulate attack was either premeditated or preplanned, but just part of a larger demonstration over the video. By then, however, enough had leaked out in bits and pieces to the public at large that such a claim was patently false on its face, including the organizer of the Cairo embassy demonstration, which desecrated our flag and flew a version of the al-Qaeda flag instead, saying he had not even seen the video, and I would contend that most in the rioting Muslim world have not.

For at least nine days following the attack, until about September 20th, Team Obama, including his UN ambassador, Hillary and her State Department, Obama’s Press Secretary Jay “swarmy” Carney and other Team Obama players, maintained the mantra that the video caused it all and that the Benghazi attack was just part of a larger demonstration.

In the meantime, the Libyan president said it was not only a terrorist attack but that it was preplanned and carried out by al-Qaeda. Hillary’s State Department seemed of the opinion that they knew more than the president of Libya, who, you know, lives there and is the president, and basically threw him under the bus for his comments (just another mistreated and discounted ally).

Then, video came out which showed there was NO large demonstration, of which the attack could have been a smaller part, at our Libyan consulate at all. There was only the attack itself and scenes of the attackers themselves, with the consulate and vehicles ablaze behind them. Oops.

Also, in the meantime, Jay “swarmy” Carney more recently said that it’s “self-evident” that it was a preplanned, premeditated attack. I don’t see how Jay Carney doesn’t get whiplash, but, gee, Jay, to some of us with a dab of brains and with only what was being publicly reported within a day or two of the attack, it was “self-evident” from the beginning. Obviously not included among us was Obama’s UN ambassador, whose credibility is now equally as low as Obama deputy campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter’s, who claimed she didn’t know anything about the laid off steel worker’s story after hosting him on a conference call in which he told her his story and she thanked him for sharing). Too bad it took Team Obama over nine days to come to the same conclusion, er, unwilling admission? Still, however, Team Obama maintained it was the video which caused the attack.

Then, we saw video of the alleged maker of the infamous and little-seen video, covered up to hide his identity, being perp walked by police on national TV, ostensibly for a parole violation (when’s the last time you saw someone perp walked for a parole violation?). You think there might have been some, uh, pressure from the White House to show that, see Muslims, we don’t like the guy, either. Obama has repeatedly characterized the video as not only the cause of the Muslim rioting but also as disgusting.

That may be, but where’s anyone in the administration standing up to the world, to include the Muslim world, in defending the guy’s right to make it anyway? After all, isn’t freedom of speech one of our most precious, enumerated rights and the one we most preach to the rest of the world? Islamists don’t want anyone to have freedom of speech if it includes anything negative, or even honest, about their prophet, their “religion,” or their Sharia law. Also about this same time, we learned Obama had spent another $70,000 of our taxpayer money to run TV ads in Pakistan condemning the “hateful” video, even while Pakistanis burned Obama in effigy. Another wise investment of our tax dollars, no doubt.

Also, in the meantime, the Muslim Brotherhood’s newly minted Egyptian president, the one who did not use his security forces to stop the initial protests at our Cairo embassy and the one who, more than 24 hours later and only after a phone call from Obama, finally condemned those protests, felt he has sufficient power to dictate to the US the terms for our sending him billions in foreign aid. Egyptian President Morsi should perhaps remember that it is his military which keeps him in power and it is we who fund his military. No funding, no military. No military, no more Morsi. It would be interesting to see how the Muslim Brotherhood could do all on its own in a country as large, and poor, as Egypt.

Then, CNN found Ambassador Stevens’ journal among the consulate rubble four days after the attack (where were our own embassy people and/or the FBI who’s supposed to be investigating the attack in securing and clearing the “crime scene”?) and, after holding its contents for another four days out of respect for the ambassador’s family, CNN released info which clearly indicates the ambassdor was concerned about embassy security and his own personal safety long before the 9/11 anniversary on which he and three others were murdered.

It’s difficult to believe, but still not yet admitted by Team Obama, that Stevens did not send his concerns about security up the chain to the State Department. And that raises the questions: (a) with the anniversary of 9/11 approaching, with known al-Qaeda terrorist militia in the area, and the ambassador’s concerns, why was security not beefed up, not only in Libya but all across the region, (b) why are there stories of what Marines were on deck not being allowed live ammo for their weapons, and (c) why did the local al-Qaeda militia have obviously better intel about the safe house than we evidently had about the militia and its plans?

Was Team Obama just caught off guard because of a lack of intel, or were they just not paying sufficient attention? Hopefully, a full congressional investigation will find the truth which the Obama Administration seems not only reluctant but recalcitrant to tell us. And, here I thought the Obama Administration was supposed to be the most transparent ever, too.

And, also in the meantime, since his brief address in the Rose Garden on September 12, two weeks ago, Obama has not once addressed the American people directly, say, from the Oval Office (where he’s supposed to work), to provide any more information, any assurances, or anything more about the killing of our ambassador and his colleagues, or the demonstrations against us across the Middle East and even into Indonesia, where Obama attended Muslim school as a boy.

All this while his feckless foreign policy of reset relations, appeasement and apology and so-called “soft power” seems to be unraveling across the Muslim world, with Obama himself being burned in effigy, among shouts of “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama, Osama.” He does not have time to meet with the prime minister of Israel, our closest Middle Eastern ally who is under existential threat from Iran, when both are either in New York or Washington. He has toured throughout the Middle East but has yet to visit Israel as an incumbent president in almost four years, which he says he will do when he’s reelected.

He addresses the UN General Assembly, still maintains that it’s all about the “crude and disgusting” video, calls what happened in Benghazi an “assault” rather than a “terrorist attack,” which even others in his own administration have now finally admitted, and refuses to meet with other world leaders (first time in two decades for a US president). However, he has had time for appearances on The View and with Letterman, Jay Z and Beyonce and their Obama tribute tower of champagne, Pimp with a Limp, still another interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes, and campaign speeches and fundraisers.

Obama — out of touch, just doesn’t care, or just wants to ignore everything until after the election? Whatever it is, it’s what’s called in the politico trade “bad optics” all around. It makes it look like he and Team Obama are either incompetent, don’t care that Rome may be burning, aren’t telling us what they know, or some mix of all of that.

An American president has two main areas for which he is responsible: domestic policy and foreign policy.

In Obama’s case, his domestic policy boat has all but sunk, promising to cut our debt in half in his first term but instead increasing it in less than four years by more than all other presidents in our history combined, leaving us with crippling debt and deficits for our children and grandchildren, no constitutionally mandated federal budget for over three years, over 40 months of unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans out of work, the most people on food stamps than any other time in our history and the most in poverty in decades, and declining manufacturing capacity compared to China, to just mention a few domestic failures.

And it seems his foreign policy boat is rudderless and adrift on the tides of the Arab Spring turned Arab Winter and the violent vicissitudes of those who want our money but who hate us and all we stand for, and who have repeatedly slapped away his naive hand of friendship, if not repeatedly bitten it.

News Flash! Obama Attending Daily Intel Briefings!

21 Sep

Yeah, after a real journalist pointed out that he wasn’t attending them for seven months (sort of like not meeting with his jobs council or his cabinet for the same period), he’s now attended intel briefings for five days in a row. Wow! And why is his doing his job news all of a sudden? Well, because him doing his job, instead of perennially campaigning, IS news, actually and unfortunately.

But he’s still out campaigning and fundraising, instead of in the Oval Office working or especially explaining to the American public how his “reset relations,” “apology and appeasement” and “soft power” feckless foreign policies have resulted in mass riots against America and Americans all across the Muslim world in general, including Obama himself in particular being burned in effigy. Guess those Muslims don’t love him like he thought they would.

And don’t tell me it’s the movie (the 17-minute trailer which has been out since July and which almost none, if any, of the Muslim protesters have even seen), like Team Obama first tried to do because they did not want to take responsibility for our first ambassador since 1979 being murdered, along with others, in a MUSLIM TERRORIST ATTACK ON 9/11.

One brief, Rose Garden address, with Hillary faithfully by his side (to show solidarity and/or take some of the blame later), the day after our ambassador and others were killed and our embassy in Cairo was stormed and our flag desecrated, at which he took no press questions, and then it was off to a fundraiser in Vegas. (At least, when Romney made a press appearance and correctly said it had been a terrorist attack, he took questions — and got ambushed by the colluding, liberal press for doing it.) Since then, nothing from Obama and a lot of false claims from his UN ambassador, Hillary and other state department mouthpieces, and his press secretary Jay “Swarmy” Carney for nine days.

So, no, not much credit for just showing up for intel briefings for a change after so long. After all, when he was an Illinois state senator, he voted “present” much of the time. That’s easy.

Now that he’s finally actually getting interactive intel briefings, when is he going to address the nation on what’s happening all across North Africa and into the Far East and, more importantly, what we’re going to do about it?

So far, crickets, but still time to schmooze with Jay Z and Beyonce, do a radio talk show with Pimp with a Limp, and appear on Letterman. He’s so cool, but he’s not much of a leader or a president.

How Liberals and Muslim Fanatics Are Alike

17 Sep

[I’ve been sick for a couple of weeks, but now I’m back.]

Liberals feel rather than think. So do Muslim fanatics. In fact, facts either confuse or are often irrelevant to both groups.

Liberals spend much of their time looking for things about which to be offended. So do Muslim fanatics. One almost needs a dog whistle and a secret decoder ring to decipher what liberals or Muslim fanatics will next hear or see which offends them. Of course, all of us in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are issued both the whistle and ring with our basic membership, but liberals and Muslim fanatics still catch us off guard sometimes.

Liberals protest in state capitols and public streets and other public and private venues, often destroying property and clashing with police or other security forces in the process. So do Muslim fanatics. Some liberals desecrate our flag. So do Muslim fanatics. Some liberals burn our presidents in effigy. So do Muslim fanatics.

Liberals disregard our Constitution, especially when it conflicts with their progressive agenda. Muslim fanatics want to replace our Constitution with Sharia law (talk about a real “war on women”). Some liberals get mad apparently just to get mad. So do Muslim fanatics. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Dr. Susan Rice, whose doctorate is, as is appropriate for a liberal, in philosophy, and our current UN ambassador, said in a recent interview that the attack on our consulate in Libya was not premeditated. Rice and other Team Obama players, to include Hillary’s State Department, have doubled down on the implausible meme that a little seen video trailer which has been out since July was the cause of attacks on our embassy personnel in Libya and Egypt on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

Even without the FBI’s forensic investigation (if they ever get to conduct it under the weak Libyan government’s auspices) or any report from the CIA about any intel indicating pre-attack “chatter” (if they ever admit it), we already know the attack on the Libyan consulate was conducted by a band of about 20, armed with automatic weapons and RPGs (not your typical Arab street protesters), that they attacked the consulate in two waves (you know, kind of like a military operation — uh, like Al Qaeda does) and that they seemed to have inside info on the location of the consulate safe house. So, Rice’s assertion that it was not a premeditated, planned attack scheduled for the 9/11 anniversary appears ridiculous on its face.

It seems Team Obama, otherwise known as the Obama Amateur Hour Administration, was once again caught with its pants down on national security (when they’re not leaking national security secrets like a sieve, they’re missing the point entirely) and believes that if it consistently lies to us and everyone from Hillary, to Jay “Swarmy” Carney, to Susan Rice all repeat the same lie, that we will believe the lie, instead of that Obama’s foreign policy of apology and appeasement, “reset” relations and “soft power” is viewed as disengagement in the Middle East and therefore as weakness by our Muslim terrorist enemies. Why else, then, were the protesters at our embassy in Cairo shouting “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama, Osama”? Could they (also) resent how much credit Obama took for the killing of Osama bin Laden?

If it later comes out that it was a preplanned attack, despite Team Obama’s best efforts and the national news media ignoring the real story about either a failure of intel, or security, or foreign policy (or a mix of all of those) while they continue to bash Romney for speaking out at all, Team Obama will look even more out-of-touch with what’s going on in the world, especially in the Arab world and particularly in the Muslim terrorist world.

Some Obama “news” henchmen and handmaidens even challenged Romney that such partisanship and politics should stop at our shores, obviously forgetting that Obama’s 2009 Apologize for America tour not only didn’t stop at our shores but was actually delivered, in part, specifically to Muslims in Cairo. I think Romney correctly spoke out and although his comments could have been better crafted and therefore more forceful, at least his instinct not to apologize for America but to defend it was correct. I just wish he had waited one more day so Team Obama would have had time to look even more foolish.

One thing’s for sure, despite all the media complaining about George W. Bush’s so-called “cowboy diplomacy” and unilateralism (both untrue characterizations), BHO is no GWB in really protecting American interests at home and abroad and Susan Rice is certainly no Dr. Condoleezza Rice (whose doctorate is in political science) — not even close.

%d bloggers like this: