Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Obama: One and Done

Spinning is one thing. Lying is another, and the Obama Administration is telling whoppers. They knew right away it wasn’t a film protest that killed Ambassador Stevens but they said over and over that it was. Forced to admit the truth two weeks later, they lied about what they knew and when they knew it. They’re still lying as I write this. The president is lying. His press secretary is lying. The vice president is lying. The secretary of state is lying. Our UN Ambassador is lying. I knew the second day what the truth was and so did thousands of other Americans who pay attention to what’s going on in the Middle East. We don’t have security clearances, but we’re not stupid. I wrote about it here and here.

Both the Obama campaign and the Mainstream Media know people like me see through their lies, and that we’ll speak out loudly against them. But they know their media reach, though diminishing steadily, is still much broader than ours and they count on that.

So why do they lie? Why not just tell the American people that it was a terrorist assault from the beginning? The same reason most people lie: to avoid consequences. What consequences? Voter perception, seven weeks before the election, that Obama’s foreign policy is a complete failure - that al Qaeda is growing even if Bin Laden is dead. They need someone else to blame, as usual, so they blamed and arrested a third-rate filmmaker no one ever heard of and violated his First Amendment rights. It was a way to avoid investigating Obama’s scandal/coverup while maintaining their pretense of objectivity.

But it’s unraveling, so now they’re hiding behind “the FBI investigation.”

The Obama campaign - which is indistinguishable from the Obama Administration - intends to ride out the three weeks until the election pleading ignorance until they get “facts” from “The FBI Investigation.” When that’s complete, they’ll find out what “really happened.”

But we already know what happened, don’t we? What else would they want to find out? Do they want to learn the identities of the terrorists who murdered Stevens, the two SEALs and the other guy? We knew this within 24 hours of the attack. Are they trying to find out how the Obama campaign/administration screwed up? That’s a ha-ha. The FBI is under the command of Eric Holder, Obama’s racist, right-hand man whose cover-up abilities have been sharpened by burying the Fast and Furious debacle - that other scandal the MSM assiduously ignores. “The FBI investigation” is nothing but a delaying tactic - but it might not work.

It gets tougher every day for the MSM because of sworn testimony by intelligence officials and State Department officials, and military officials who insist that they warned their higher-ups - repeatedly and for months - prior to the attack, but were ignored. The MSM desperately wants to keep Obama in the White House for another term, but it’s much harder to keep him there than it was to put him there four years ago. He has a record now and long speeches with lofty platitudes aren’t cutting it anymore. Voters saw how incompetent he is in the first debate. They saw that the Hope and Change guy the media created doesn’t exist - and never has.
No. He didn't.

The second MSM debate moderator - Candy Crowley of CNN - ran interference for Obama just as Romney was skewering him on Benghazi. Lying again, Obama said he called the attack an act of terror immediately - and Romney was calling him on it when Crowley leapt in to cut Romney off. What Romney could have said then and didn’t, was: “Why then, Mr. President, did you send out your surrogates to repeatedly lie to the American people for you and insist that it was a film protest?”
Pretense of Objectivity

This will all come up in the third debate next week which will focus on foreign policy.

Use whatever analogy you want: “the emperor has no clothes”; “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”; or whatever. Voters saw. Polls shifted. Obama is in trouble. If and when the Benghazi cover-up falls apart, Obama is toast. Not only that, but Hillary - that other allegedly brilliant Democrat constructed and protected by the media - will be toast also. Her 2016 dreams will be over.

Even if Obama wins reelection, the House of Representatives will likely remain Republican with subpoena power to force testimony under oath - and the power to impeach both the president and the secretary of state. She is likely to resign after the election, but her reputation will be forever tarnished by exposure of her lies.
The Obama campaign and their Mainstream Media ancillaries obviously think voters are too stupid to understand all this. Are they right? We’ll know before midnight on Tuesday, November 6th, less than three weeks from now.


Average American said...

Candy Crowley and Anderson Cooper have BOTH conceded that Romney was CORRECT! NOMObama did NOT call the events in Bengahzi an act of terrorism! He used the word terror, but in a completely different context! I wonder how much lamestreamenemedia attention that will get..???

Brian said...

He used "act of terror" in the wrong context?!? Hmmmm, he was at a special press conference to talk about what went down in Libya, and he said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation". Are you trying to say he went off on an unrelated tangent when he spoke of terrorism?

What about the following day, September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, when Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice, saying "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world". Out of context again? lol

Didn't you just love the dazed look on Romney's face when he got whapped with the reality of Obama's words.....huh, you said what?

The entire night was a major bitch-slappin' for Willard.

Terrorism is at it's lowest levels since 2006. Read about how the frequency of international terrorist attacks has dropped in recent years at the Christian Science Monitor.

Oh, but wait. Despite this, Tom desperately tries to paint Obama's international success as a complete failure because of one of these dwindling acts! Good one, Tom. Like calling Michael Jordan a failure for missing a big shot.

Are voters too stupid to understand all this? I think not. Most voters are not as dense and/or dishonest as Tom. Which is why Romney has no chance.

Anonymous said...

You did well Brian, presenting your side of the discussion. It was a little crude in places but one has to expect that these days.
Overall it was not too bad. But you spoiled it at the end by suggesting that I am stupid.
That does not win you friends or votes.

Peace and love...

Anonymous said...

Earth to Brian :

Obama lied about the September 13 reference to terrorism . At that time he was still blaming the Benghazi attack on the stupid film , and for many days after that he was still telling the same lie through his press secretary and his ambassador to the U.N. But I'm not telling you anything you really don't already know .

Texas Transplant said...

Last night's debacle was not by any means a debate. It was no more than two men arguing in a bar, with a biased moderator putting in her two cents. I agree with those who say that when the minutes for response were up, the microphone of the person speaking should have been shut off. In future, please, have a moderator who knows debating rules and can keep his or her mouth shut.

Brian said...

Sorry about suggesting you are stupid. Just because Tom calls people stupid for "not understading" does not mean I should stoop to his level.

To the other anon: Yes, he did once again call it an act of terrot in Las Vegas>


The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

Anonymous said...

Liberals complained abpout the moderator in the first debate. This time around it is Conservatives doing the griping. Is it a coincidence that the losers are always the ones whining?

Jules H said...

Tom, I think you got it right here. I agree that Obama lied about his characterization of the attack (regardless of what squishy CYA phrases he slipped into his speeches about spontaneous anger over a formerly obscure video)and everyone knows that he was misleading at best, whether or not they will admit it now. Critics skewered W for taking his time (a relatively VERY SHORT time) to react to 9/11, but at least W did not apologize to the world for our freedom of speech, or host a chorus of people mindlessly parroting far-fetched red herring characterizations of the attack that almost nobody believed.

Why do so many of those who post comments choose to remain anonymous? It makes them seem afraid to stand behind their own words.

Linds said...

Nobody cares about semantics and the use of the word "terrorism". None of the squabbling changes the fact that global terrorism is down and Bin Laden is dead.

If you are concerned about lies, last week the Romney campaign took its lies to a whole new level regarding reproductive health. Romney told the Des Moines Register, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." But just two hours later, Romney Press Secretary Andrea Saul said Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life." And in 2011, Romney said he would "absolutely" support a Constitutional amendment defining the beginning of life as the moment of conception.

Romney will say or do anything if he thinks it will help him get votes. Absolutely shameless.

I like Ike said...

Why is no one mentioning how Obama avoided the fast and furious question? Romney had the sack to bring it up and Obama tried a weak diversion. Totally avoided it. Our president ran guns and drugs in Mexico that killed us citizens and innocent Mexicans. Why is no one questioning this? Obama has used "executive privilege" ( what exactly is that really, huh?) to avoid confronting the truth multiple times. A farce really. And why does no one mention him murdering anwar al Alaki and his teenage son? They were us citizens!! I didn't like the guy but whereas due process?

Terrorism? Whatever. A campaign of lies and fear waged by the military industrial complex Ike warned us about. How about bring em all home and put troops on our Mexican border? What the hell? Why are there not thousands of marines on ouir own borders rather than Afghanistan and Iraqs?

And Obama didn't kill bin laden. That whole raid is a joke. Burial at sea, seals dying afterwards, etc. and the famous picture is admittedly staged. A joke.

Lets hope Romney isn't a corporate puppet---- ha! Good one .

Tom McLaughlin said...


You talk about semantics and then you use the phrase "reproductive health"?

You mean killing babies, don't you?

Anonymous said...

I've never killed a baby but I've had a lot of reproductive health care.

Rhonda said...

@ Brian, "international success" ??? Are you serious? Are you delusional? Read this:

Obama's Global Epic Failure

Anonymous said...

To Rhonda: On the contrary, the Obama administration has restored strained alliances and friendships around the world, while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Several studies of international attitudes demonstrate that the election of Mr. Obama, with his call for partnership, respect for international rules on prisoners, and acceptance of the responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back into an indispensable leader in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. For example, a Pew Foundation poll found dramatic increases in U.S. favorability ratings across Europe and parts of Asia.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the Bin Laden raid was faked, all politicians are mind-controlled by evil powers, and behind it all is Elvis Presley.

Linds said...

There goes Tom, hiding any discussion about Romney's lies with more semantics talk.

Anonymous said...

Here is another of Romney's lies for Tom to hide from.

From the NY Post:

Romney’s response on equal pay consisted of claiming he asked women’s groups to put together “binders full of women” candidates for cabinet positions when he was first elected governor of Massachusetts, claiming that his policies for the economy will make it stronger thereby fixing the problem of a wage gap between the genders, and claiming that he wants to make it easier for women in the workplace so they can leave work at 5 p.m. in order to make it home in time to cook dinner.

The first two are false and the last is sexist and out of touch.

Romney did not ask women’s groups to put together binders full of women, they did that before he was elected in preparation for whoever won the election. So when Romney says, “I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women,” this is not true. The women’s groups brought the binders to Romney because of the disparity between men and women at high levels of state government before Romney was elected. He tried to take credit for the work of these groups last night and got fact checked on this point today.

Clare said...

"Obama savored his "victory" in that round, but it was a hollow and disturbing one. Either he already knew it was an act of premeditated terrorism -- in which case he proceeded to lie for two weeks about that on The View, David Letterman, and at the UN -- or that generalized Rose Garden reference to an "act of terror" simply meant a spontaneous act of terror by demonstrators worked up about a YouTube video, in which case he was demanding credit from Crowley for nothing more than incompetence and cluelessness.

A master of detail for most of the debate, Romney slipped up on that one by forgetting the Rose Garden reference. That was his one unforced error. But that minor moment of memory loss isn't nearly as disturbing as a president who works harder at debate prep than embassy security and who blames a national humiliation on a "spontaneous demonstration" that didn't even occur."

Please don't forget that Obama and Clinton also released a commercial shown throughout the Middle East apologizing for the video which they both said was the motive behind the murder of 4 Americans. Even more frightening is why he sent Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi 48 hours after receiving credible information that there would be an attack on the compound? What is Obama trying to hide?

Finally, UN Ambassador Rice takes her marching orders from the White House. Why did they tell her to go on 5 Sunday shows repeating the lie that it was not a terrorist attack but a spontaneous mob reacting to a video? Why was the producer of the video arrested and put in jail?

Anonymous said...

Clare, could you please give me a link to the Obama/Clinton video in which they apologize, I would like to see it.

Also, could you give me a link to what piece of "credible information" you refer to.

As for why the filmmaker is in jail, I can help you out. He was on parole for bank fraud and as part of the parole was ordered to stay off the internet for 5 years.

Anonymous said...

I think Hillary's chances for the White House are much greater if Romney wins. After the country sees the results of four years under Romney she would win in a landslide.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why the so-called "liberal media" are not all over Romney about what he is hiding on his taxes. There is word that he had an IRS penalty for some shady dealings in foreign banks. A filthy rich bugger like him trying to screw his country out of some money...

His way of doing things will "trickle down" sh%# all over the lower classes.

Anonymous said...

The right wing blogs and media are all screeching in unison again, furiously trying to pretend that President Obama never referred to the Libyan embassy attack as an “act of terror” until 2 weeks later.

In other words, as usual, they’re all shilling for Mitt Romney’s lies.

So let’s look at President Obama’s exact words, as he delivered them in the White House Rose Garden on September 12, 2012: Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | the White House.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

The right wing spin is that Obama was speaking of “acts of terror” in a general sense — but that’s ridiculous. The only way you can believe that is if you totally ignore the sentences that follow, where he specifically makes the connection to the Libya attack.

But then, that’s what right wingers are great at — ignoring facts and context.

Clare said...

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi,and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Anonymous said...

The Independent seemed to use unnamed sources regarding the "credible information" so that can be taken with a grain of salt.

I am still hoping for the link to the video of Obama and Clinton apologizing.

buttercup said...

As always, the pictures McLaughlin illustrates his rants with are a glimpse into his psyche. Today his misogyny is on full display. The worst thing he can imagine is a black couple in the White House, so he chooses a picture of Michelle Obama as a harpy. All women are harpies to McLaughlin, unless they're obedient vassals at home, tending to their masters, as one imagines Mrs. McLaughlin does.

Only a misogynist would refer to women's reproductive health as "killing babies." In Tomworld, all women are all pregnant all the time, apparently. Ovarian cancer? Who cares? The health of the incubator is of no concern to him. Just the fetus, and only during the fetal stage.

Average American said...

Here's to putting "no acts of terror" back in it's original context. It was a general statement not exclusive to Bengahzigate!

"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Ted said...

Anybody trying to pretend that Obama's back-to-back sentences about terrorism and Bengahzi are somehow not related is dumber than a doorknob. I know this is not the case for the average American, so I wish this nimrod here going under that name would change it to Clueless Partisan.

Anonymous said...

"I noticed that it is raining outside. Maybe I should get my umbrella."

No, no, the reference to the umbrella is not connected to the prior sentence about rain. It is just a general statement not exclusive to the forementioned rain. Don't take it out of context.

THAT is how dumb you sound.

Cliff B. said...

Give Romney credit, at least he wasn't as stupid as some people, and he gave up the line of attack about Obama not calling it an act of terror. He made a fool of himself at the 2nd debate and cut his losses.

Now he has to go back and look at a map. Syria is Iran's "gateway to the sea"? Huh?

And how about his continuing the lame "apology tour" bit? When told factcheckers declared that untrue, he tried to say it was true because Obama talked about the USA dictating to other countries. But isn't that what Romney WANTS the USA to more forceful in the world. Not to mention that admitting the obvious is no apology.

Anyway, nice to see Willard, the Empty Suit, lose 2 out of 3 debates. He is probably holed up somewhere trying to figure out how much he should boost military spending to now include more bayonets.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Romney lost a chance to skewer Obama foreign policy. Don't understand why he didn't use it.

With Lebanon a vassal state to Syria, which, in turn, is a vassal state to Iran, it does give Iran a path to the Mediterranean. Hezbollah - Shiite proxy army of Iran - now controls Lebanon politically. For years it has had a stronger military than the secular government of Lebanon, whose leaders have been assassinated when they didn't kow-tow to Syria.

Romney obviously decided to downplay Benghazi, which I think was a mistake. He needed to stay on the offensive and shine a light on Obama's defunct Middle East policy.

Just because the MSM is trying to say it's a non-story, Romney didn't have to go along, but he did.

We'll see in two weeks if it was the wrong move strategically.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on, Tom. If Willard thought he could get ANY traction out of beating that dead, disproved horse without making more of an ass of himself, he would have. Get a grip on reality.

Anonymous said...

So, Romney missed "a chance to skewer" Obama, but chose not to.

What are you saying Tom? That Romney is dumber than you, who think you could have spun that story into a skewering? And yet you want him to lead our country?

Eric said...

In regards to the Empty Suits lame, tea-bag licking claims about an apology tour:

Fact-checkers at Politifact, the Washington Post, and have gone over those speeches Romney refers to and have concluded, time and again, that President Obama made no apologies for the United States. While the president may have acknowledged American shortcomings and attempted to distance himself from the policies of his predecessor, not once did he apologize.

Anonymous said...

I would respect Willard more if his line of atack was that Obama never once apologized for any American shortcomings.

Anonymous said...

What a ship of fools. Unreal. If you think for a second that Obama dictates any REAL foreign policy then I have some ocean front to sell you in Bangor.

Grow up.

Arguing over corporate candidates who "debated" on corporate tv. How about demand some real candidates instead of these half wits the military industrial complex gives us?

Thank you all for ruining this country because you refuse to comply with reality. Connect the damned dots people. It ain't that hard. This two,party system is a complete joke. And anything less then a popular election is an absolute farce.

Anonymous said...

Again with the same conspiracy theory? We get it, you think anybody who becomes president must be a brainwashed puppet and that all us unenlightened Americans are fools. Thank you oh mighty genius.