Even though Mousy Mitt and his timid team steadfastly refused to address the issue in their “three cheers for bipartisanship” campaign, as everyone on the planet now knows, the Benghazi fiasco is a pile of lies coated with many layers of Obamanure. The list of items that involve lying, criminal negligence and breathtaking incompetence grows by the day.
However, there is one issue that towers above all others, and I’m perplexed as to why no conservative politician or media person is hammering away at it on a daily basis. In fact, the only media person I’ve heard even mention it – just twice – is Charles Krauthammer, but no one else at Fox News appears to have much interest in it.
It’s an issue that reminds me of the trap Barack Obama found himself in when Supreme Idiot John Roberts ruled that the Obamacare fine is really a tax, because Obama had promised not to raise taxes on people making under $250,000 a year.
BHO obviously couldn’t say that he agreed it was a tax, because that would be an admission that he lied about not raising taxes. But he also wasn’t about to argue against the Supreme Court’s anti-constitutional decision to uphold Obamacare, because it gave him what he wanted.
And, of course, no one held his feet to the fire, not even those fierce guys on the other side of the aisle. So, once again, the mysterious stranger from Kenya was allowed to slip into the night unscathed – and even get re-elected!
Now, along comes Benghazi. Forget about BHO’s refusal to send help to Americans who were under attack and begging to be rescued. It may have been purposeful on Obama’s part, or it may have been nothing more than incompetence. Either way, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that four Americans are dead because of Barack Hussein Obama. But, as tragic as those deaths are, there is a much bigger issue that politicians and the media seem to have no interest in talking about.
Where Obama is trapped in the Benghazi-gate affair is that he insisted, in his final debate with MittMan, that the day after the attack, Sept. 12, he called the Benghazi killings “an act of terror.” It was, of course, a lie, but that was his claim. What he actually said was that “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.” Clearly, it was intended to be a general statement.
Then, on Sept. 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, the Master of the Forked Tongue said, “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.”
So, let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that in both cases he was referring to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The question then becomes: Why did he direct Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to appear on five major television shows and unequivocally state that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with terrorism and that it was, in fact, a result of a “spontaneous demonstration” over an anti-Islamic online video?
There is no credible answer to this question, which is why Mitt Romney should have been pounding away at it throughout the last weeks of his campaign, and why Republican officeholders and conservative media commentators should be pounding away at it today. But, sadly, they are not.
Oh, and while they’re at it, they should ask Obama why he directed his press secretary, Jay Carney, to tell the same lie to the White House press corps two days after he supposedly referred to it as a terrorist attack. And, worst of all, Obama himself, two weeks after the fact, hung his hat on the video tall tale no less than six times in a speech at the U.N.
What we have here is not a failure to communicate. It’s an attempt to cover up the fact that four Americans were murdered in Benghazi because BHO – not “the White House” or “the administration,” but Barack Hussein Obama himself – refused to send help even though he and his staff were watching the pre-planned terrorist attack in real time!
Though the Dirty Dems keep insisting that all this is much to do about nothing and that Republicans are simply “politicizing” a non-event, the truth is that Benghazi-gate is far more serious than Watergate. If the cover-up of a petty office burglary is a crime, then the cover-up of the real reason that a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were murdered is a far more serious crime.
So, in addition to my question about why the Duplicitous Despot directed Susan Rice to appear on five major television shows and say that the Benghazi attack was nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration that resulted from a video, I have another question: Why isn’t anyone – say, for example, Republican House and Senate members! – talking about criminally indicting Barack Obama? Or, at a minimum, starting impeachment proceedings against America’s make-believe president?
I know, I know … Geraldo will insist that it “doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment,” that it’s no worse than having oral sex delivered to the Oval Office, followed by Groper Bill looking the camera in the eye, wagging his finger and insisting, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Hmm … now why was it again that MittMan and his handlers decided not to discuss any of this at the third presidential debate – which was devoted entirely to national security? Romney’s refusal to do so made him guilty of aiding and abetting a cover-up – or, at the very least, negligence.
Help me here. Am I missing something?