Boy, it's such a good thing there was a mass shooting on Friday, so that the media complex can have an excuse for completely ignoring this pile of horse manure spewing out of the Obama Administration. As I recall, Hillary couldn't make the first hearing either because she was at a wine tasting with friends in Australia.
Now this load of mularky (as Joe Biden would put it) is her excuse?? She fell down and hit her head so, sorry Congress, you can't get any answers about why American diplomats are dead. Hillary has taken all the responsibility, you remember, but she won't say what exactly she actually knows. Why should the peons that are the American populace need to be informed about anything their government does? It's become totally acceptable for our government to lie, hide, and obfuscate facts in order to do their work in the dark. We in America still hold the fallacy that our government is beholden to us...but our leaders are quickly making that notion a thing of the past. How long until they just start telling Congress "no, we won't answer you" instead of making up not-so-clever lies? It shouldn't be long at this rate. I mean, they are giving her a pass for a "concussion."
Now maybe most people don't know, but I've had at least one concussion when I was younger. It was just a mild one, but I wasn't in bed a week later ignoring the world. Heck, I've known guys who had serious concussions when I was in highschool and two days later, they were back in school, headache and all. Professional athletes PLAY with concussions (though I wouldn't recommend that). Yet Hillary is unable to sit in a comfy chair for two hours in order to answer some questions about the life and death of brave Americans because she has a headache!? Take some damn tylenol!
And she is going to be our next president!? Is Russia accepting American refugees? At least there they understand that their leaders are corrupt...plus they've already done the Socialism thing so you know they won't go back to the mess we are heading straight towards!
As protests in Egypt turn violent, Barack Obama is strangely silent. Last year when protesters called for an end to Mubarak's reign as Egypt's dictator-president, Obama proudly proclaimed that we (or he, as he liked to put it in the debates) stood with the protesters. He said that the people of Egypt need to be able to live freely in a democratic system, and so Mubarak needed to step down.
Well now, as Mubarak has been deposed, Mohamed Morsi has been democratically elected and promptly drafted a new constitution that basically declares himself unlimited power. In other words, he wants to be a dictator.
Now as the people in Egypt are, once again, protesting a dictator ruling over them with an iron fist, Obama has remained silent. No speeches about how the Egyptian people need to be able to live freely in a democratic system this time. Maybe he thinks he made a mess last time and doesn't want to repeat that mistake? Maybe he just thinks one kind of dictator is better than another kind? Who knows? But you'd think the President of the United States would have something to say about it. After all, we do give them over a billion dollars of aid a year.
And where is Hillary Clinton? She was just hanging out with Morsi in order to try and work out a Hamas/Israel cease fire...but now, she's nowhere to be found. She took such pleasure cackling about the death of Gaddafi, but as another man seeks to stamp on the neck of his people, she has suddenly grown mute. Guess that 2016 presidential run needs all of her attention. Apparently, people being murdered in Egypt by a would-be dictator that they helped get into power isn't important enough to distract Obama and Hillary from their vacation plans. Glad we (they) have such a good foreign policy and are helping spread democracy around the world.
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified before a closed-door hearing today that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points. Corroborated by other intelligence officials, this information strikes another blow at the Obama Administration's handling of the Benghazi Massacre. Now we know for certain that the CIA indicated in it's original memo that the attack was an "al qaeda related terrorist attack" and that they knew right away it wasn't because of a protest over a movie!
The officials were unable to say who changed the talking points. They went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department, and White House. Rep. Peter King told Fox News, "I'd say it was somebody in the administration that had to have taken it out. That, to me, has to be pursued."
While it is a "smoking gun" that they were told it WAS a terrorist attack from the beginning by the CIA, proving that Jay Carney, Susan Rice, etc., were spreading a false story about the protest over a movie, I seriously doubt it will be pursued. Who's going to pursue it? The Republicans in the House? They're already being portrayed as "sore losers" in order to discredit them. The Obama Administration is beyond reproach at this point. Even if impeachment proceedings were begun by the House, the Harry "I can't" Reid led Senate would never impeach Obama no matter how damning the info is. Obama is safe.
And why did they lie about it being about a protest over an anti-Islam movie? Because they support blasphemy laws and need to begin to soften the public up over them. They can't get around the First Amendment without help from the sheeple.
Earlier I wrote about the new Cheka and how their goal is the same as the original Cheka in Soviet Russia: silence the opposition. As I wrote, the new Cheka isn't a secret police force; instead it is the people themselves who have been indoctrinated with leftist/Marxist drivel since 6th grade. Well no group in America embodies the new Cheka quite as well as the media...who, over generations, have been bred to repeat leftist ideas instead of critically thinking up any of their own.
Today, the media Cheka are hard at work trying to silence anyone pointing a finger at President Obama or his woefully inept administration concerning the Benghazi massacre. The new object of their ire: Senator John McCain. McCain, already hated by the left for being a war hero (to them there is no such thing as a war hero; anyone involved in war is inherently evil), is now being viciously and repeatedly attacked by the talking heads in the media for questioning Susan Rice's involvement in the incident, her response to it (which turned out to be straight lies), and her part played in trying to obfuscate the facts. Rice, who may be in line to become the new Secretary of State once Hillary retires to focus on her presidential campaign, was the one who took her message of deceit to five morning talk shows 5 days after the Benghazi massacre. You'll remember, she said it was all caused by a protest gone wrong and that there was no proof that it was a premeditated attack.
Well now, Senator McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, has said that he will filibuster Rice's nomination as Secretary of State until the Benghazi incident has been fully investigated in public hearings. McCain is calling for Watergate-style hearings into the White House's handling of the incident, including the decrease in security leading up to the attack and the lie about it all being a protest that was spread for two weeks after the attack (before they all agreed that it was indeed terrorism, and that is what they had said all along!).
This incursion into the Marxist regime plan has not been taken lightly by the new Cheka, and the media has responded in scathing, and somewhat predictable, fashion. They are now painting McCain as an Ahab-type figure, who, consumed with his loss to Obama in the 2008 election, is now taking any chance to try and "get back" at Obama. They are saying that his criticism of Susan Rice, as well as the whole Benghazi incident, is simply because he is a sore loser that just won't accept that he lost. Now I am not a huge fan of McCain, but this attack, being repeated at all levels of the media, is completely disingenuous and disgusting. (Not that I should expect different from the "state media.") First off, the Benghazi massacre is not just some "bump in the road," as Obama put it. It's a major, historical event. The death of an ambassador is nothing to sneeze at, and the idea that the death of 4 Americans is not really important is of such anathema to me that I feel that anyone making that case needs a good punch in the nose! I know in America today we are more concerned with who got voted off of Dancing with the Stars than anything that is happening in other parts of the world...and also that life is cheaper than once believed...and that if it doesn't affect me I shouldn't care. I do believe that is what is wrong with America today. A lot of people need punching in the nose!
But to attack John McCain as a sore loser 4 freaking years after he lost seems like a bit of a desperate measure! However, I do know that the American public will eat it up, as anything said on TV is taken as truth by most people who can't be bothered to come up with their own thoughts. This is why the new Cheka is winning in reshaping America into a socialist paradise, and why more and more Americans are becoming a part of the new Cheka. And as mentioned in my last post, this attack on a Republican is all part of the plan. The media are complicit in this plan, and this story is just one example of it. McCain, as well as other Republicans who continue to make trouble for the new Socialist Regime in Washington, will be phased out of the American consciousness over the next 4 years by a lying and traitorous media complex.
The democratic republic that many (too) good people fought and died for is no more, replaced now by a semi-totalitarian government that "wins" elections through massive fraud and where elected officials are no longer accountable for their actions. You don't have to look any further than Hillary Clinton to see that. The Secretary of State (you know, the Department dedicated to Foreign Affairs...Libya counts right?) will be skipping the Congressional hearings on the Benghazi incident in order to "visit friends" in Australia. According to one report, she may even attend a wine tasting event. How nice.
We've reached the point of no return in America, proven to many (including myself) by last weeks "elections." You know, the ones where Obama won certain precincts in places like Philadelphia and Cleveland by an 100% margin. Yeah. Not one person in those places voted for Romney...even by accident. No wonder all those Democrat Elections Supervisors were kicking all Republicans out of those precincts.
And the biggest proof that America is dead is that no one cares. I mean, 4 people lost their lives (2 at least probably unnecessarily) in Benghazi. But with wine to be tasted, why would Hillary need to concern herself with that? She's only probably in line to be the next president. Why would dead Americans matter to her or the majority of Americans? I mean...I didn't know them, so it doesn't matter to me. Now where's my TV guide?? I have WAY more important things to be concerned with than dead Americans and what our leaders have done about it....American Idol is on tonight!
Friday was a bad day for Barack Obama. First, the news comes out that CIA operators were told to "stand down" when they wanted to go to the consulate in Benghazi to try and help the Ambassador and other Americans there...then in an interview with an NBC affiliate in Denver, the president, when asked about those reports, responded by saying:
"The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened."
Um...excuse me, Mr. President?? The election has nothing to do with a terrorist attack that took the lives of 4 Americans, your inability or unwillingness to send in rescuers who might've been able to save them, your lies about the attack which lasted for weeks (which you yourself have now confirmed), and your subsequent coverup/dodging of the issue as more reports come out?? What DOES the election have to do with, Big Bird and birth control?
I'm increasingly distraught that ANYONE in America continues to support this man. Some people would support him no matter what...he could strangle a puppy while kicking a baby in the head on national television and there would still be some morons gushing about how great he is! What worries me is that it seems like that number is astronomically high. Either that or an astronomically high number of people just don't pay attention to anything he says or does. Which is why my Facebook page has been drowned recently with articles and stories of his atrocities. But how can this election even be close? I'm beginning to believe an article I read a while ago that said Obama is trying to lose the election; that he hates the responsibility and is passive aggressively trying to derail his re-election by speaking and acting stupidly. That, at least, is a good explanation of how he can be so flippant about important issues. The sad thing is that it isn't dissuading people like it should. If Romney doesn't win this election big...I will lose heart about the state of America and it's future. Because either there are way too many idiots here, or there are way too many people so self-absorbed that nothing that doesn't affect them matters to them. Either way it's bad for America.
But back to this "Libya thing"...because it DOES matter to millions of Americans. Among them are Charles Woods, the father of one of the ex-Navy SEAL's, Tyrone Woods. He is beginning to speak out against the president and his response to this attack. Mr. Woods also has been talking about his meeting with President Obama and Hillary Clinton when his son's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. His description of the meeting is disturbing, to say the least. He says President Obama didn't look him in the eyes and merely mumbled some words about being sorry which, to Mr. Woods, sounded insincere and forced. He says Clinton's apology also sounded hollow and forced and that...and this is shocking...she told him that they would find the man who made the anti-Islam film and HAVE HIM ARRESTED! There's almost too much there to properly analyze. First, it was a misguided response. How about getting the terrorists who actually did the killing!? Second, saying you're going to have an American citizen arrested for making a movie is INSANE and against everything America stands for! And the fact that he was, in fact, arrested is disturbingly scary. He was arrested on charges of probation violation, so I had no ground to complain on because he may have very well violated his probation. However, NOW knowing that Hillary said this before he was arrested either means A) they (meaning the federal government) had already begun researching this man to know that he was on probation or B) they had planned to arrest him ILLEGALLY based simply off his making this film.
I'd say someone needs to look more closely at who that man is, what he had done to get on probation in the first place, and who decided he had violated his probation. Because pledging to arrest a man ONLY based on the knowledge that he produced a movie is unconstitutional and illegal. I doubt that we'll get an answer to these things as he's almost become an afterthought. He's also still in jail. How long will he stay there for a "probation violation?" We need to keep an eye on that.
This has gotten long (because there's just SO many things to discuss about it!) so I'll end it now by talking about Tyrone Woods. He was stationed at the "annex," about a mile from the consulate where Ambassador Stevens was killed. When he heard the shots and explosions happening at the consulate, he (along with other unnamed heroes) requested to go to the consulate to help their countrymen. They were denied that request at least twice. But they ignored it, and Tyrone Woods was one of a few men who made their way to the consulate, secured the area for a time while they evacuated personnel, and made their way back to the annex...where, in a mortar attack about 4 hours later, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. Those two men should be alive today. They died about 6 hours after the assault began...more than enough time to get larger response forces there. Charles Woods said he received an email from one person who was in the consulate that night. It said that his son, Tyrone, saved his life. Tyrone Woods ignored his orders to stand down and went to that consulate...saving lives. Tragically his was lost as others made decisions antithetical to his: they chose to ignore his peril. Tyrone Woods is a real American hero. And I, for one, will never forget his story. Nor will I forget Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty. And that's why their death DOES and SHOULD matter to this election, despite the president's insistence that it doesn't.
How is it that Fox News and CNN can get this information, but no one in Washington can!?!
I especially appreciate the attack timeline. Before this I heard nothing about the attack on the second location, in which the two ex-Navy Seals were killed by mortar fire. Why aren't we hearing these things from the Administration? Where is the leadership?
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (what the hell!?) Ben Emmerson has warned Americans not to elect Mitt Romney. He said doing so would be a "democratic mandate for torture."
He was referring to Mitt Romney's refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding as an interrogation method for terrorists. The idiot also said:
"The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad. Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to."
Are. You. Serious!?! What a bloody moron! I'm tired of these idiots saying that if we do anything to upset the terrorists, that it will "increase" the threat levels. That somehow, as long as we don't upset the terrorists (not even Muslims in general...the terrorists!) that they will give up their Jihad and suddenly decide that Israel and America are A-Ok! That level of stupidity absolutely boggles my mind! How can anyone be so stupid!? ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WANT EVERYONE TO BECOME MUSLIM OR DIE! THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! THERE IS NO 'LIVE AND LET LIVE' WITH THESE PEOPLE!
Yet some morons want us to believe that they are only mad at us because we make them and as long as we don't do anything to upset them, the threat of Islamic Extremism will disappear off the face of the earth. It's lunacy. But what do you expect from this dude.
That's Ben Emmerson. I don't know about you, but I'm not taking advice from anyone wearing a powdered wig. And the U.N. is a joke. If they say to not vote for Romney, it's pretty much a sign that you should!
Oh, and btw, there's this:
"U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004."
So waterboarding works. Anything that gains information that can save lives is ok with me. Let the waterboarding commence. If Islamic extremists wanna act like animals, then they forfeit their human rights. Period.
Last night's presidential debate had one very interesting moment that will surely be discussed a lot in the coming days. Once the terrorist attacks in Libya were brought up (which took far too long and lasted far too short for my liking) President Obama said something that made Mitt Romney do a double-take. He said that the day after the attack, while making a speech in the Rose Garden, that he called the attack "an act of terror." Mitt Romney seized on that and tried to get him to repeat it (which for some unknown reason he would not do) but it was moderator Candy Crowley who spoke up to say that those indeed were his words. (How she managed to get the transcript only a few seconds after he said it is unknown to me.) President Obama seized on the moment and asked Candy to repeat that, which she did...to applause from the pro-Obama portion of the crowd.
This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:
"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."
Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)
However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.
He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:
Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"
MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."
A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:
MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "
Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!
He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:
RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."
While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!
He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:
“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:
“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:
"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."
President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!
The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?
Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.
But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??
So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.
It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.
Tanks fill the streets of Venezuela as news of Chavez fraud spreads.
Despite exit polls showing that Venezuelan dictator/president Hugo Chavez lost the presidential election Sunday, the Venezuelan electoral council declared Chavez the victor. The announcement has many in Venezuela declaring election fraud. The numbers seem to back them up, as all the exit polls showed Chavez lost to challenger Henriques Capriles by a slim margin. And Chavez himself seemed to show his hand when he sent tanks and troops armed with AK-47's into the streets before the final results were announced. Now why would troops and tanks be needed if Chavez lost?? They wouldn't. They would only be needed if the president knew that he would be declared the winner no matter what the polls said, and that protests to an illegal election would take place. It was clearly a pre-emptive move designed to squash any thought of protests BEFORE the illegal results were declared. This looks like a pretty clear case of election fraud and a dictatorial leader staying in power illegally.
And what did the Obama Administration do about this clear case of fraud and tyranny? They congratulated Chavez and the Venezuelan people "on the high level of participation, as well as on what was a relatively peaceful election process." That quote came from White House spokesman Jay Carney. (An apt name since the Obama Administration looks more like a two-bit carnival freak show than a competent band of leaders at times)
I remember watching a special on Vladimir Putin shortly before he "won" his re-election bid. At one point it mentioned what happened in the country of Georgia in 2003. There were apparent fraudulent results in the parliamentary elections that year (helped by Putin) and the resulting protests led to the ouster of their president at the time, since he was complicit in the fraud. The United States strongly condemned the illegal election fraud, made strong statements urging new elections, and even sent Secretary of State James Baker there to push those free elections. The result was an ouster of a corrupt president, a new election un-tainted by fraud, and a freer Georgia hailed as a better place by it's citizens.
Today, when a corrupt dictator "wins" a clearly fraudulent election, keeping his own people down with tanks and soldiers in the street, the president of the United States congratulates him and moves on like nothing happened. Great foreign policy, Barack.
But of course Barack Hussein Obama doesn't think Hugo Chavez is such a bad dude. Remember this quote he made in July: "But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chávez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us. We have to be vigilant. My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs, and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don't always see."
Wait. What was that? What's your main concern? That the Venezuelan people have a voice and ultimately have fair and free elections? Um...should we chalk that up as another lie or would you like to take that back? Perhaps the altitude screwed up your thought process again. Maybe you should've said your main concern was getting yourself re-elected, because that's all it seems like you really care about.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had this to say about the president's comments and Hugo Chavez: “This is a stunning and shocking comment by the President. It is disturbing to see him downplaying the threat posed to U.S. interests by a regime that openly wishes us ill. Hugo Chavez has provided safe haven to drug kingpins, encouraged regional terrorist organizations that threaten our allies like Colombia, has strengthened military ties with Iran and helped it evade sanctions, and has allowed a Hezbollah presence within his country's borders. And he is seeking to lead – together with the Castros – a destabilizing, anti-democratic, and anti-American ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ across Latin America. President Obama's remarks continue a pattern of weakness in his foreign policy, one that has emboldened adversaries and diminished U.S. influence in every region of the world. As president, I will speak clearly and resolutely on the challenges we face so that both our allies and our adversaries will know where we stand.”
Looks like Romney is gonna crush Obama on the foreign policy debate just as easily as he did on the economic debate.
